Oral Answers to Questions

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

Housing Development

John Whittingdale: What assessment he has made of the infrastructure necessary to support planned housing development in Essex.

John Bercow: What plans he has for additional infrastructure to support new housing in Aylesbury vale; and if he will make a statement.

Yvette Cooper: Parts of Essex and Aylesbury vale are included in the growth areas in the sustainable communities plan. Already the growth areas are benefiting from £1.2 billion of infrastructure investment from my Department plus £3.5 billion of transport investment. It is clear that both areas will need further infrastructure investment to support new homes.

John Whittingdale: Is the Minister aware that Essex roads, schools, hospitals and sewers are already under huge pressure? It has been estimated that the extra 123,000 houses that her Department wants to see built in Essex will require an additional £13 billion of infrastructure investment, but mid-Essex is currently scheduled to get almost nothing. Will she either drop her plans or provide the money to support them?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman knows that over the past five or six years the east of England, including Essex, has seen an increase of more than 20 per cent. in public sector investment, which I am sure that he welcomes. I agree that more infrastructure investment is needed to support new housing. That is why we are consulting on a planning gain supplement, which I hope that the people of Essex and he will support, because it could make a big difference to both infrastructure and the new housing that we need.

John Bercow: Given that the 1,060 new homes that the Government expect Aylesbury vale to accommodate every year between now and 2026 must be accompanied by vital infrastructure if the quality of life of my constituents is to improve and not to deteriorate, will the Minister today either pledge that the £713 million cost of extra education, health, transport and leisure services will be met centrally or alternatively agree to meet a delegation consisting of local authority leaders, my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and me to discuss the matter?

Yvette Cooper: I am always happy to meet hon. Members and delegations to discuss public sector investment, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, this party and this Government have strongly supported not only in his area but across the country, often against sustained opposition from his party. As I have said, additional funding for infrastructure is required, which is why the planning gain supplement consultation is so important. I urge him and his party to support the planning gain supplement, which is an opportunity to get additional investment into infrastructure not only in his area, but across the country.

Andrew MacKinlay: I support the Government's policy on the regeneration of the Thames Gateway and the need for infrastructure investment. However, I must signal my considerable disappointment that the Government's programme to regenerate the Thames Gateway has not reached fruition, particularly in my area, Thurrock. Will the Minister therefore carpet the chairman of Thurrock urban development corporation and ask him to account for what has been going on for the past two years? Will she also ask her colleagues—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Andrew MacKinlay: The Minister gets my drift.

Yvette Cooper: I certainly get my hon. Friend's drift. I know that my hon. Friend appreciates the importance of proper consultation on plans, and the Thurrock urban development corporation is consulting on a series of different proposals for the area, which include making Purfleet a priority. I agree that we must go further in ensuring that we get not only regeneration and jobs, but new homes, which are badly needed.

Phyllis Starkey: One piece of transport infrastructure that my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) require is the reopening of the Oxford to Bletchley railway line and the spur down to Aylesbury. Can the Minister confirm that the plans for housing growth strengthen the business case for those railways? If Conservative Members want the benefit of the infrastructure, they should support the housing growth.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right that new housing should be accompanied by new infrastructure, including infrastructure investment for public transport. We are investing in Milton Keynes station and supporting transport and rail investment across the country. She is right that the issue is about meeting housing need. We face considerable pressures on housing into the future, so we cannot put our heads in the sand.

Michael Gove: Can the Minister tell the House what proportion of her proposed new tax on development will be given back to the people of Essex and Buckinghamshire to fund infrastructure and what proportion will be kept back by the Chancellor to plug the black hole in his finances?

Yvette Cooper: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his first Question Time as shadow Housing Minister. It is good to see him at the Dispatch Box but unfortunate that he has chosen such a question, which suggests that his party will not support the planning gain supplement. That is deeply unfortunate, and I hope that he will take the opportunity to contradict me. We have said, as part of the consultation, that the majority of the planning gain supplement resources should go back to those local areas in which the additional development is taking place, but that we also need to look at the mechanism for extending investment on infrastructure that will cross local authority boundaries and will represent the strategic investment across the region. It is important to raise these additional funds because those new homes for the future are badly needed; otherwise, in 20 years' time only 30 per cent. of 30-year-olds will be able to afford their own home. That situation is unsustainable.

Inner-city Regeneration Projects

Tony Lloyd: What assessment he has made of inner-city regeneration projects; and what plans he has to extend them to other areas.

John Prescott: The Government have an extensive programme of assessment and evaluation of our key regeneration initiatives, which are promoting prosperity and delivering an urban renaissance in our major cities and their inner areas. We intend to apply the lessons of our successful regional cities to the next level of cities and towns.

Tony Lloyd: My constituents were used to the neglect of the inner cities under Tory Governments. Since that time there has been investment, and central Government, local government and the private sector have been working together in a way that has put the quality into our inner-city areas and put the hope back into our communities. My right hon. Friend must take no lessons from Conservative Members, who would take us back to those days of abandonment. Will he continue with these far-sighted and sensible policies?

John Prescott: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. The evidence is very clear that in all our major cities there has been a renaissance in building, development and regeneration. The paper that we published just before the last election, "A Tale of Eight Cities", shows just how much employment has grown, housing has developed, and industrial development has been to the benefit of the cities. I might say that the previous Administration's policy of having huge superstores outside towns was at the expense of cities. Changing that has led to a 30 per cent. increase in retail development in our cities. Before the election, the policy was for eight cities; we have now developed and extended it to more than 50 cities. It is a successful policy and we will continue with it.

Gary Streeter: While strongly supporting the focusing of spending on inner-city areas, will the Deputy Prime Minister none the less look at spending decisions by some councils, such as Plymouth city council, which seems to be over-focusing on inner-city areas to the exclusion and detriment of the suburbs? As a result, places such as Plympton and Plymstock cannot even get play areas upgraded and refurbished. We all support extra spending in inner-city and deprived areas, but will the Deputy Prime Minister look into this—

Mr. Speaker: Order. One supplementary is fine.

John Prescott: It is interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he supports us. I am afraid that that was not evident when his previous Administrations were dealing with inner-city programmes and regeneration. He welcomes the regeneration that is going on in Plymouth as being much to its advantage and complains that the suburbs are being forgotten. I am not sure that that is the case, but I will undertake to look at it since he invites me to do so. The development of the inner city of Plymouth is very much welcomed by its people and very much to the advantage of people who have been ignored for many years.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: The regeneration and funding that has gone into the construction industry since 1997 has completely revitalised an industry that was dead on its knees at that time. I am desperately impressed by the number of jobs that we have, but immensely concerned that we are not involving enough young people in those employment projects, particularly those connected with public sector investment. Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that when these contracts are let, young apprentices are recruited as part of the procurement process?

John Prescott: Indeed. It is very much the Government's aim to improve apprenticeships in all areas, particularly the building and construction industry. We are working with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Work and Pensions on these matters. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have insufficient skills in this country, and in the construction industry we are short of every kind of skill. Admittedly, that is because we have created a great increase in economic activity, but a lot more still needs to be done and we are certainly doing what we can.

Sammy Wilson: In the light of claims of an over-emphasis on the destruction of Victorian houses as part of inner-city regeneration, will the Deputy Prime Minister comment on that and give hon. Members an assurance that there has been and will continue to be consultation to ensure that refurbishment and regeneration schemes have the correct balance between demolition and refurbishment so that local people are not disadvantaged and communities are not destroyed?

John Prescott: The hon. Gentleman is right and that is exactly what we do in consultation. However, I advise him not to believe everything in The   Daily Telegraph or even everything that Front-Bench spokesmen put out about the destruction of houses. More houses are being developed, refurbished and built than are being demolished. More than 500,000 houses are involved in pathfinders. Frankly, we believe that we are right: some houses have to be knocked down but we are building and refurbishing more than we are demolishing.

David Clelland: How important are social mobility and public transport to inner-city regeneration? How can they help inner-city regeneration on Tyneside when the passenger transport authority has to fund a £5 million deficit to finance the Government's free bus fare system from April?

John Prescott: I understand my hon. Friend's point. However, he knows that our commitment of £350 million for free pensioner passes means that all transport authorities receive considerably more. I understand that the matter is critical in the north-east, where the transfer from rail to bus may create anomalies, but nobody knows for sure and discussions continue. However, pensioners in this country have a free pass service, which they did not have previously.

Sarah Teather: Lord Rogers's urban taskforce identified one policy change in particular as essential to the revival of our towns and cities. When will the Deputy Prime Minister implement the recommendation to harmonise VAT across new-build housing and repair?

John Prescott: That was one of the recommendations of the first urban taskforce that was appointed under Lord Rogers. Approximately 99 out of 100 recommendations were implemented. That is a good record. I note that Lord Rogers has prepared a second report, which repeats the point that the hon. Lady raised. It is a taxation matter and she can be assured that we discuss such issues constantly with the Treasury. Such a policy—and, indeed, the planning gain—requires extra revenue. There are some uncertainties and unfairnesses in the application of tax. The hon. Lady has properly identified one and we are continuing the discussions.

Kitty Ussher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only cities experience inner-city problems of drugs, poor housing and deprivation? Will he therefore commit to providing sustained investment in Burnley, especially in poor housing, beyond the next spending round?

John Prescott: My hon. Friend is right. I visited Burnley a year or so ago, after the terrible riots there. Clearly, poor housing was an important problem. We have developed the pathfinder programme and I assure her that it will be successful and continue into the next round of public expenditure commitments.

Caroline Spelman: Last July, a tornado ripped through some of the most deprived wards in Birmingham, exposing the dire need for regeneration. In November, the Deputy Prime Minister told the council that he would respond in due course. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister made the same statement only last week. Surely a whirlwind is needed in the Department if it takes so long to respond to a natural disaster, which has left families roofless, homeless and devastated.

John Prescott: The hon. Lady may know that difficulties of interpretation sometimes arise in discussions about compensation through the Bellwin scheme and that they are often not settled. We will continue with the negotiations. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government has visited two or three times.
	In Cornwall, where floods occurred, and in Carlisle, which I visited last week—[Interruption.] Well, the Department is involved in the regeneration and renaissance of all cities, whether Birmingham, Carlisle or Manchester. We shall give proper attention to the policies that are necessary to solve the problems. The discussions are ongoing.

Gypsy and Traveller Sites

Julie Morgan: When the "Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Sites" circular will be published.

Yvette Cooper: We expect to publish the new planning guidance very shortly, alongside new guidance on enforcement. We need more sites, to address the shortage that has grown, and also better enforcement to deal with problem sites.

Julie Morgan: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am pleased to hear that the guidance and the circular will come out soon, because I know that they are eagerly awaited. Does she agree that the provision of more Gypsy sites will help to reduce tensions between the Gypsies and Travellers and the settled community, and result in more social inclusion for Gypsies and Travellers?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. The shortage of Gypsy and Traveller sites has grown since 1994, when the law changed. That has resulted in an increase in unauthorised developments and encampments, which can cause huge tensions with the settled community and can contribute to the further exclusion and difficulties faced by Gypsies and Travellers.

James Gray: The disgraceful and illegal Gypsy encampment at Minety in my constituency has been given leave by the Deputy Prime Minister to stay there for 18 months while Wiltshire county council assesses, among other things, whether there are enough Gypsy sites around to accommodate the caravans. Given that these people are nomadic and come from as far away as southern Ireland and Romania, by what mechanism should Wiltshire county council assess whether it has enough sites?

Yvette Cooper: We shall also be publishing additional guidance on accommodation needs assessments for Gypsies and Travellers. This is obviously more difficult than assessing the accommodation needs of the settled population, which is why the additional guidance is required. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would accept that, to address this problem, we need not only better enforcement but more appropriate site provision; otherwise, we will simply shift the problem elsewhere.

Supporting People

Brian Iddon: What consultation his Department has carried out on how to develop the supporting people programme.

Phil Woolas: A consultation paper on developing the supporting people programme was published on 15 November 2005, with consultation running until 28 February 2006. Throughout that period, officials and Ministers are meeting a wide range of stakeholders, including local authorities, service providers and people who use the service.

Brian Iddon: The special interest group of municipal authorities—the SIGOMA group—is happy that the new funding formula delivers on the needs identified in the social services block. The problem is that the figure has been reduced by £250 million for the next financial year by the damping mechanism. Before making his announcement yesterday, did my hon. Friend consider the impact that that level of damping would have on metropolitan local authorities in the SIGOMA group? For how long will the damping mechanism be applied?

Phil Woolas: I am of course aware of the representations that my hon. Friend and his local authority have made on this issue. I repeat to the House that every local authority in the country has once again received an above-inflation grant increase. Authorities such as that of my hon. Friend, which are above the floor, are paying indirectly for those that are beneficiaries of that arrangement. The decision that my colleagues and I took to ensure stability and predictability in local government financing is part of a very important and, I believe, successful policy.

Tony Baldry: The existing formula does not take adequate account of the cost of delivering services. Nor does it take account of the fact that, in counties such as Oxfordshire, there are areas of considerable need. For example, the 2001 census showed that more than half the population in the Grimsbury and Ruscote wards in my constituency were carers. When the Minister is deciding on the new formula, will he please try to ensure that it is fair; otherwise, the most vulnerable people will be hit the hardest?

Phil Woolas: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the supporting people programme, about which he and his colleagues have already made representations to me and others. I want to emphasise to him that the allocations for the second year of the two-year settlement—2007–08—are guaranteed minimum allocations at 95 per cent., in order to allow the planning of the services that those vulnerable people need.

Neil Turner: Welcome as the supporting people programme is, the Minister will know that it is not core funding and is therefore subject to ministerial support. Does not my hon. Friend agree that the best way in which a Labour Government can achieve its historic aim of reducing inequality is to fund local authorities at a formula that recognises real need rather than to damp that out of existence?

Phil Woolas: In reference to the supporting people programme, I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will ensure that the most vulnerable in our society have access to a proper home, with a roof over their head and the support services that they need to be able to carry on living independently. I assure him that during the consultation, which ends later this month, that commitment will be at the front of our minds.

Eric Pickles: Given the cut in funding, that assurance is meaningless. The Minister must understand that this is the next crisis that is likely to engulf his dishevelled Department. The cut in funding is blighting the lives of many, involving a drop in the quality of life for the most vulnerable. The Government's wilful blindness will not prevent a growing crisis, which, ultimately, will be more expensive to the state. Avoiding the problem with diversionary reviews, tinkering with structure and official junkets to Disneyland fools no one. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Can I ask the House to come to order?

Phil Woolas: I thought that the hon. Gentleman read out his press release with great eloquence. Unfortunately, like the reference to the newspaper story at the weekend, it bore no relation to the facts whatever. In relation to the accusation about the reduction in funding for the supporting people programme, which delivers services to the most needy and vulnerable in our country, I remind the House that there was no such programme before this Government were elected to office.

Alison Seabeck: My hon. Friend will be aware of the Audit Commission's concern that delivery of the generally excellent supporting people service is variable and inconsistent. What action is his Department taking to ensure that the 1.2 million service users receive the best possible care and support from providers?

Phil Woolas: This morning, I attended the Local Government Association and National Housing Federation conference in Church house, with 300 stakeholders, to discuss exactly that issue. I assure my hon. Friend that the objective that she has outlined to the House will be at the forefront of our minds when we publish the findings of the consultation and our conclusions in the summer.

Government Office for London

Adam Afriyie: What plans he has for the future role and responsibilities of the Government office for London.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will publish shortly a review of the Government office network. Its emerging proposals include a smaller, more strategic role for Government offices including GOL, the Government office for London. A consultation on additional powers and responsibilities for the Greater London Authority is also taking place. However, we do not expect that review to have a major impact on the functions or size of GOL. I want to pay tribute to the excellent work done by the staff of GOL for the people of the capital.

Adam Afriyie: Given the current burden of government in London, with the Mayor, the GLA, the 32 boroughs and the London Development Agency, can the Minister tell us clearly, precisely and specifically the unique functions of the Government office for London, so that we can make a judgment as to whether it is worth while?

Jim Fitzpatrick: My understanding is that the Government office network was created by the Conservative party in government, long before the hon. Gentleman arrived in the House. The Government office for London serves a unique purpose of co-ordinating the responsibilities of 10 different Government departments within the capital. We are undertaking a review of the Government office functions in line with the GLA review. After the consultation period, which concludes on 22 February, we will determine what the appropriate level of responsibility is, and we will make that announcement shortly.

Social Services Funding

Jeff Ennis: If he will review the implementation of the damping mechanism for social services funding for the financial year 2006–07.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans to review the damping mechanism in the 2006–07 social services formula. The ODPM has laid the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2006–07 in the House for debate on Monday 6 February. It would not be appropriate to withdraw that report at this late stage, as authorities must set their budgets to a statutory timetable.

Jeff Ennis: That was obviously a very disappointing response. May I point out, further to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), that many northern metropolitan authorities, such as those that I represent, have experienced heavy damping down of education and housing management, to name but a few services? We are now seeing heavy damping down of children's social services. I implore the Minister to think again about what is a very important issue for many northern metropolitan authorities.

Jim Fitzpatrick: As I said in my answer, we shall debate the settlement on 6 February. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government replied earlier in respect of the details of damping down of social services, but let me point out that this is the ninth successive year in which we have delivered an above-inflation increase to local authorities. By 2008, that will represent a 39 per cent. real-terms increase in expenditure.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Ashok Kumar: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 1 February.

Tony Blair: Before I list my engagements, let me say that I am sure the whole House will join me in sending our condolences to the families of the two British soldiers killed in Iraq this week, and will agree on the remarkable job that our armed forces are doing with courage, dedication and sheer professionalism in the service of their country and to help Iraq to become the democracy that its people so clearly want. We owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Ashok Kumar: I share the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister, and the sympathies expressed to the families for the sacrifices that have been made on our behalf.
	Has my right hon. Friend seen the latest report from the Equal Opportunities Commission? It concludes that one in five private firms pay women far less than men for the same work. That means that 10,000 women in my constituency are losing out. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that constitutes disgraceful discrimination of the highest order in a democratic society in the 21st century? Will he tell me what we as a Labour Government will do to put matters right?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is right to point out that such discrimination still exists, although actually the gender pay gap is at an all-time low of some 13 per cent. I look forward to the report from the women and work commission which will be published in the next few weeks. It will not only draw attention to the serious problems raised by my hon. Friend, but provide us with some solutions.

David Cameron: I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Lance-Corporal Douglas and Corporal Pritchard. Their deaths will be a devastating loss to their friends and families, and they remind all of us of the debt that we owe all our soldiers for the work that they do on our behalf.
	Following the two defeats in the House last night, what confidence can the country have that the Prime Minister will be able to carry his agenda?

Tony Blair: Let me put it like this: I think it is probably a good idea for me to turn up for the education vote.
	We will carry through the programme of change and reform, particularly in relation to schools, welfare, and antisocial behaviour and crime, because we believe that it is the right agenda for the country. In respect of schools, for example, we think that there have been enormous improvements over the past few years, but we need further change, reform and investment to take the change programme further still.

David Cameron: I have noticed that the Labour Chief Whip is a little quieter than normal. She is probably the first Chief Whip in history to put the Prime Minister in the frame for losing a key vote—which is an interesting career move, to say the least.
	Is it not becoming increasingly clear that when the Government do the right thing, such as introducing education reforms, they can do it only with Conservative support, but when they do the wrong thing, they cannot carry either their own Back Benchers or the country?

Tony Blair: I obviously do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill was the wrong thing to do, and for reasons that we have set out on many occasions. He said that he will support schools reform, which is fine—that is a position for him to adopt. We believe it right to have these reforms, even though there has been tremendous progress in our schools in the past eight or nine years. Indeed, school results at the ages of 11, 16 and 18 are now better, we have the highest number of teachers for 25 years, we have doubled the number of support staff and there is record investment going into our schools, all of which was opposed by the Conservatives. Even though the situation is far better than in 1997, it is not acceptable that almost 40 per cent. of kids do not get five good GCSEs.

David Cameron: Every week I ask the Prime Minister about education and every week he says that he will stick to the Bill. But every weekend, I read about a climbdown, so I am pleased that he is sticking firm. Looking ahead—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a Whip shouting next to the Chair. This happens every Wednesday and I tell him: get away from the Chair and do not shout when the Leader of the Opposition is speaking. That is not a Whip's duty. He has other duties and he should attend to them.

David Cameron: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My advice to the Whip in question, given current circumstances, would be to get away from the Whips Office. That would probably be a better move.
	Looking ahead to the Government's programme, is not the right approach to stop attacks on freedom of speech such as last night's, to scrap the identity card scheme that even the Government's own terror adviser is now questioning, and to press ahead with education reforms, which we will back for the good of the country?

Tony Blair: I am afraid that, obviously, I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman about last night's Bill. Nor do I agree with him about identity cards, for reasons that I gave when we had this exchange a couple of weeks ago: they are an important part of fighting crime in the early 21st century. But as for changing positions, we have made it clear that we are in favour of these school freedoms, and of making sure that there is no return to selection and that schools have to abide by the code of practice. It is the right hon. Gentleman who has changed his position on education policy. [Interruption.] Well, he has denied that over recent weeks, but let me quote what he said back in September last year:
	"I will continue to fight for real school freedom—not the phoney version offered by Labour. Real school freedom should mean school autonomy . . . over selection."
	He went on to say:
	"The fact that grammar schools continue to improve at a faster rate shows how wrong it is for Labour to continue undermining them . . . Giving all schools greater freedoms—including the ability to select pupils—will help this".
	Then he was asked whether, if schools wanted a return to selection by ability, they could have that. He said:
	"That's right".
	Then suddenly, two weeks ago, he says:
	"I guarantee . . . there will be no return to the 11-plus . . . There's a real case for more selection within schools rather than selection between schools."
	So with the greatest respect, we have held firm throughout; it is he who has been dithering about.

Kelvin Hopkins: In view of the looming debt of £100 million facing the Queen Elizabeth hospital private finance initiative scheme, hospital scheme cost overruns amounting to £2.5 billion over the next five years, doubts about the affordability of the Barts and Royal London hospital development, and Treasury objections to the excessive profits being creamed off by PFI companies, is it not time to abandon PFI as an irrational nonsense invented by the Tories, and to replace it with cheap and accountable public investment?

Tony Blair: I am afraid that the answer to that is no, it is not time to do that, and for a very simple reason. There is now the largest hospital building programme in the NHS since it was created. When we came to office, under the old system, we had run-down NHS buildings and more than half the stock had been created before the NHS was formed; now, as I said, we have this huge hospital building programme going through. Of course, with any hospital building programme, PFI or otherwise, we have to make sure that we get value for money. But there is a reason why more people are being treated than ever before, in more modern facilities and at a faster speed: it is investment, yes, but also change and reform, including PFI.

Menzies Campbell: Today, we all express our sympathies to the families of the two British servicemen who died this week in Iraq, and it is right, too, to remember all those others who have died and been injured, some grievously. Drawing on the lessons of Iraq, is it not imperative that when dealing with Iran, there must at every stage of the process be explicit United Nations authority?

Tony Blair: Of course, we have agreed with our partners to report Iran to the UN Security Council because of what that country is doing in breach of its international obligations, but it is also important that we send a signal of strength. Whatever our views on the wisdom of the Iraqi conflict, we in this House have just sent our deepest condolences to the families of the soldiers who have tragically lost their lives. When people try to stop us helping Iraq to become a democracy and a more stable nation—the benefits of which will be felt not just in that country and the region but here as well—and to kill our soldiers or innocent civilians, it is important that we do not walk away but that we stand up and fight back.

Menzies Campbell: Last September, the Foreign Secretary said that military against Iran was "inconceivable". Today, he is reported as saying that Iran has a "final opportunity" to change course. What does he mean by that?

Tony Blair: The matter is now before the Security Council, and we are pursuing it by peaceful and diplomatic means. However, Iran has breached its obligations in respect of nuclear weapons and is exporting terrorism around the region. Given that, and what it is doing in respect of human rights, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognises that it is important that we say—at this moment above all others—that it must come back into compliance with its international obligations, and that we all support the action necessary to make that happen. As I say, we are pursuing that in the UN Security Council, but it is important that Iran understands that this House is united in determining that it should not be able to carry on flouting its international obligations.

Stuart Bell: The Prime Minister has been kind enough to share with the House his views on Iran. However, will he now share with us his views on the election of Hamas in the putative state of Palestine?

Tony Blair: The most important thing is to say to Hamas that we respect its mandate and the fact that it won the elections. However, the only basis for progress in the middle east is a two-state solution—a secure and confident Israel and a viable Palestinian state. We will not be able to take the process forward if one of the partners has in its constitution the desire to get rid of the other—that is, the state of Israel. That is why Hamas faces a very fundamental choice. If it chooses democracy and peace, and to work side by side with Israel, then of course we stand ready to take the process forward. However, we cannot do that if Hamas' fundamental position is inconsistent with the outcome that we all want.

David Cameron: This week, we heard that the problem of climate change may be even worse than previously thought, and that the Government will not meet their targets. Later this month, the Government plan to close four out of the eight eco laboratories that monitor climate change. What happened to joined-up government?

Tony Blair: We have set a Kyoto target, which we will meet. It is very tough on CO 2 emissions, as the right hon. Gentleman knows and for all the reasons that he knows. This country is leading the international debate on climate change. As the recent report from the international body on the environment showed, we are now ranked fifth in the world in terms of our environmental record. That is a very good record for this country.

David Cameron: But will the Prime Minister look at the case of the laboratories? The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), said in a letter:
	"The . . . closure . . . does not make sense, either scientifically or economically, whether considered at a national or a local level."
	Is he right?

Tony Blair: There is a debate, because of the Research Councils UK decision—[Interruption.] It has taken the decision to close the laboratories, and there is of course a debate about whether that is right or not. The basic point about the Government's climate change policy is that we will retain the renewables target and reduce CO 2 emissions in the specified time. However, there is no point in the right hon. Gentleman raising these issues while he remains opposed to the climate change levy. That levy is the only sure way to secure the reductions in CO 2 emissions that we want. I therefore hope that he will change his position on the levy.

David Cameron: It was a simple question: is the Minister right? Sir David Attenborough has called those laboratories world leaders in biodiversity research. They make a crucial contribution to measuring the effects of climate change. I fear that the Prime Minister has not really considered the matter; will he go away and think about it, have a look at the evidence and come back to report to the House next week?

Tony Blair: I do not agree. Research Councils UK takes those decisions. The key thing for us if we are to meet our Kyoto targets—[Interruption.] If we are to tackle climate change seriously, we need to do two things. First, this country has to meet its Kyoto targets, and we are meeting them, in part through the climate change levy; the right hon. Gentleman remains opposed to it, but it is that which is helping us deliver on the Kyoto targets. Secondly, we have to build international support for action on climate change, which we are doing. The speech last night by the President of United States shows that there is growing consensus that we need to invest more in renewables and in clean technology, in which regard we are leading the way.

Howard Stoate: The recommendations in the Government's new White Paper on health, published on Tuesday, on care outside hospital represent the best opportunity for a generation to improve patient care and bring real choice to people in the communities where they live. Will my right hon. Friend ensure meaningful change in how the national health service is operated to ensure that real power shifts from secondary care hospitals to primary care settings, where people really want improvement in their services?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend knows a great deal about this matter and knows that that is precisely what the White Paper is designed to achieve. As a result of the incentives and changes introduced by practice-based commissioning, there will be a real incentive, not merely a duty, for general practices to offer care at the most appropriate point and to make it easier to access and more convenient for patients. For example, practices will be able to do blood tests and so on far more quickly and where it is convenient for people, rather than sending them to the secondary sector.

Nigel Evans: Before he retires, will the Prime Minister have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer? His right hon. Friend has, over the past five years, pocketed more than £60 million from speed camera fines. Yet when I asked Labour-controlled Lancashire county council for some money for a road safety improvement on the A59, I was told that it had no money. Will the Prime Minister ensure that all the money raised from speed camera fines is used for road safety measures?

Tony Blair: We have doubled expenditure on road transport, and as I recall the hon. Gentleman went into the Lobby to vote against that very investment.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: An unsolicited testimonial.
	The tragedies in Iraq and the recent book by Professor Sands again raise issues about the legitimacy and legality of the war. Will the Prime Minister therefore take this opportunity to cast definitive light on one matter that remains obscure? Before the war, was the Cabinet made aware of the existence—not the content—of the Attorney-General's original written opinion, dated 7 March?

Tony Blair: As I have said on many occasions, the Attorney-General was present at Cabinet in order to discuss his opinion. He was there, and he was able to answer any questions raised.
	May I make one point to my hon. and learned Friend? I understand entirely why he was against the original Iraqi conflict, but British troops have been in Iraq for the past two and a half years, with a United Nations mandate and the full support of the Iraqi Government, who are themselves, for the first time, the product of direct election by the Iraqi people. I believe that it is right, legally and politically, for us to stay there and see the job through, because that is in the interests of the Iraqi people and the British people.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The Prime Minister will recall that the Government rightly voted against the artists resale right directive, which will drive, art, business and jobs out of the United Kingdom, but that it was imposed by majority voting. Is he aware that the Department for Trade and Industry is now embellishing and gold-plating the implementing regulations, in defiance of what he said about that danger? As the regulations will be debated tomorrow in Committee, will he bring the DTI—the Secretary of State is sitting on the Front Bench with him—into line with his own promise to end damaging over-regulation, or were those just more empty words?

Tony Blair: No, I do not agree. In fact, there is a strongly contested point which he assumes as a matter of a fact is about gold-plating: it is not. It is about the nature of the directive itself. For the reasons that the Minister has given, the directive is right. As for qualified majority voting, I think that I am right in saying that that particular version was introduced under the Single European Act, which was part of the legacy of the previous Conservative Government. If I were the right hon. Gentleman, I would pay more attention to working out with whom the Conservative MEPs will sit in the months to come.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the signing at the London conference yesterday of the compact and the new national development plan for Afghanistan represents a real way forward for that country and, if supported by the international community, could contribute to peace and stability in the region?

Tony Blair: I agree with my hon. Friend obviously, but it is important at this moment—when terrorism is fighting back in Afghanistan and Iraq and when it is clear that the peoples of both those countries want a free democracy, because they voted in their millions for that—for the international community to help those countries become different. As failed states, they were a threat to the whole world. It is worth reflecting for a moment that the security that we are able to provide in Afghanistan and Iraq to help those countries become democracies is not only of assistance to them, but—in changing them from failed states into democracies—is of direct benefit to the security of this country, too. That is why it is important that we stay the course and see it through.

Mark Francois: Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister told the House that he wanted to listen to what local people say when determining the changes to police forces. Given that in Essex, the police authority, the chief constable, Essex county council and 15 of our 17 MPs, including the hon. Members for Colchester (Bob Russell) and for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), have all publicly pledged to back the stand-alone option, will he now honour his pledge to listen and ensure that popular police forces around the country, such as Essex, are allowed to stand alone?

Tony Blair: Of course, as I said last week, we will listen carefully to all the representations that are made, including the ones the hon. Gentleman has just made.

Andrew Dismore: What advantages does my right hon. Friend see arising from the partnership between Jobcentre Plus and Marks and Spencer, which he saw when he visited Brent Cross shopping centre in my constituency last week to hear first hand from lone parents, disabled people and the former homeless, who are now employed by that company in secure employment and worthwhile careers? Does he agree that that provides a valuable example of best practice in what can be achieved in helping disabled people back into work?

Tony Blair: I found it very inspiring to talk to the people in my hon. Friend's constituency, some of whom have been unemployed for many years but who have found work through Jobcentre Plus and the new deal and because Marks and Spencer has realised that people with disabilities could be an excellent work force and there were people who would commit themselves long term to the company. It underlines how important it is that we get more people off incapacity benefit and into work. The pathways to work pilot has been very successful and, as we said last week, we will roll it out across the country.

Ian Paisley: May I associate myself with the remarks already made by others? Our deepest sympathy goes to those who have lost loved ones in the war in Iraq. It has often been said that bereavement is not good at talking. We all know that and we have our own feelings about such matters. I am sure that the whole House will be in the same mind as me on that.
	Has the Prime Minister read the two reports that have just been issued, one by the Independent Monitoring Commission and the other by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning? Is he not alarmed that after all that was said against my party when we said, "Don't take what the IRA has said as truth, examine it", the commission, which was set up by the Government, admits that perhaps it was misinformed and that its judgment in September that all arms had been decommissioned was a misjudgment? When a Government—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are other hon. Members who wish to be called. The Prime Minister will answer the right hon. Gentleman.

Tony Blair: A fair summary of what the IMC said is that it drew attention to its belief that a strategic decision has indeed been taken by the leadership of the IRA to give up the armed struggle. The IMC has also said, however, that it is concerned about violence and criminality. Let me make it clear once again: all criminal activity has to cease. That is absolutely crucial, but it would be quite wrong if the right hon. Gentleman were suggesting that there had not been very significant progress or that the statement that the IRA gave last July was not highly significant.

Social Behaviour

Graham Allen: What progress the Government have made in promoting social behaviour since July 2005.

Tony Blair: By a number of different ways, noticeably Sure Start and programmes in primary and secondary schools, we try to encourage rejection of antisocial behaviour and the embrace of social behaviour.

Graham Allen: Does the Prime Minister accept that many youngsters in deprived constituencies such as mine, often from broken families, arrive at school unable to recognise numbers or letters, or unable even to speak in complete sentences or relate to their fellow pupils? Will the Prime Minister consider putting the teaching of social behaviour at primary school at the same level as the successful campaigns on teaching numeracy and literacy, where the local education authority so wishes?

Tony Blair: Some of what my hon. Friend rightly draws attention to is being done through primary schools now in the programme on which the Department for Education and Skills is working with them. He is absolutely right, however, to draw attention to the fact that for our young people it is not merely about passing exams, but about communication skills and being able to work with people, where, in addition to the other measures we are taking, the increase of sport in schools—and bringing sport back to schools—will have a major impact. My hon. Friend is right to say that we will have a programme in place, available for local authorities to use if they so wish.

Engagements

Brian Binley: Last year, Labour-run Northamptonshire county council was given a 6.5 per cent. increase in formula funding, yet this year the now Conservative-run council received an increase of just 2.1 per cent. Can the Prime Minister tell me why last year the county council deserved more but this year deserved less?

Tony Blair: The hon. Gentleman has a slightly curious way of describing it; actually, real-terms increases are still occurring this year. I remind him that as opposed to the Conservative years, in which, constantly, funding for local authorities was cut, we are increasing the funding year on year on year. That is why, in an area such as Northamptonshire, for example, police numbers have risen, we have more police support staff and there has been a 17 per cent. fall in domestic burglary and a 6 per cent. fall in overall crime. And under this Government the money will keep on coming.

Alasdair McDonnell: I welcome the renewed efforts by the Prime Minister and the Irish Government to restore devolution in Northern Ireland, but does the Prime Minister agree that one of the best options for progress would be to remove suspension and recall the Assembly, thus allowing the wrecking parties to resolve their difficulties within six weeks and restore a local Executive so that social and economic issues can be tackled urgently?

Tony Blair: I agree with my hon. Friend that we want to see the institutions back up and running as soon as possible, but as he knows—and to state the obvious—that can only really happen if a degree of confidence exists so that the parties can work together. The talks that will begin shortly, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will lead, will give us an opportunity to explore the differences, but as ever with this process, the Government can facilitate but we cannot force people to do what they do not wish to do. I hope that during those negotiations and talks we can discuss the circumstances in which we can get the institutions back up and running properly.

James Gray: Tuesday's health White Paper calls for a greater local delivery of health services, which the Opposition very much welcome. Does that spell a reprieve for Malmesbury hospital?

Tony Blair: I cannot comment on the hospital that the hon. Gentleman mentions in particular, but I can say that the one thing that is for sure is that over the past few years—[Hon. Members: "What about the hospital?"] I think that it is as well to remind the hon. Gentleman's constituents of the massive increase in investment under the Labour Government, because one thing is for sure: every bit of that investment, including a 7 per cent. real-terms increase in health funding this year, would have been opposed by him and his party.

Personal Statement

Stephen Byers: In my personal statement on 17 October 2005, I apologised to the House for the factual inaccuracy in my answer to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) during the Transport Sub-Committee meeting held on 14 November 2001. I am grateful to the Committee on Standards and Privileges for its investigation into my evidence, and in particular for its finding that I did not lie to the Select Committee, as alleged. As I told the Committee, an accurate reply at the time would have caused me no problem, either politically or legally. Although the Committee recognised that in my personal statement of 17 October I had accepted that I gave a factually inaccurate answer, it concluded that I should have apologised unreservedly for having done so. I accept the Committee's conclusion, and I therefore offer my unreserved apologies to the House.

Points of Order

John Baron: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In Health questions yesterday, we referred to the growing problem of the lengthening waiting times for radiotherapy, made the point that the Government are continually refusing to measure those waiting times, and asked how the problem could be solved. The Secretary of State for Health indicated in her answer that the Government would introduce measuring facilities for such waiting times, but that clearly contradicts written parliamentary answers given to us very recently. Will you please look into this matter, Mr. Speaker, and ensure that Ministers give accurate answers in future—for the sake of cancer patients, in this case?

Mr. Speaker: The best way to deal with that is to table more parliamentary questions.

Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At Question Time today I mentioned two reports, and you told me from the Chair, Sir, when you put me down, that I would be answered. The Prime Minister did not answer anything about the report that I was quoting—he went on to another report—and on a matter of this nature, when a Government-appointed body now admits that it misled people about decommissioning, we need a straight answer from the Government.

Mr. Speaker: It is best for the right hon. Gentleman to pursue that matter with the Prime Minister, but to get the record straight, I put the right hon. Gentleman down because his supplementary question was too long. As a seasoned campaigner in the House, he will know that long supplementary questions will be stopped by the Speaker, for no other reason than that.

Alan Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Two years ago, the Prime Minister tabled a motion in the House to welcome the fact that pensioners would be able to collect their pensions from the Post Office, using a Post Office card account. However, yesterday, an anonymous spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions announced that those accounts were always intended to be only an interim solution. Have you had any request, Mr. Speaker, from any Minister at the DWP to come to the House to explain why that fact was concealed from us two years ago, and to explain the pilot schemes that are starting this month, thus preventing some pensioners from using Post Office card accounts for their pensions?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman represents a constituency that is, at the very least, very rural, and post offices are an important part of that community. He should apply for an Adjournment debate and get the appropriate Minister down to the House.

Protection of Private Gardens (Housing Development)

Greg Clark: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to protect private gardens from housing development which is out of character with the surrounding area; and for connected purposes.
	The Bill is designed to close a loophole in the planning system that is giving rise to great concern in my constituency and constituencies throughout the country. The problem is essentially that front and back gardens are classified in planning terms as the equivalent of brownfield sites. In other words, they are treated the same as an old   gasworks or a disused railway site. As housing development is encouraged on brownfield sites, it is next to impossible for local councils throughout the country to refuse planning applications for developments that they consider to be excessive, even if they want to. The situation has serious consequences for my constituents and those of other hon. Members.
	Let me give hon. Members an illustration of the problem. Forest road in Tunbridge Wells is typical of many roads throughout the country. Developers are buying up houses with big plots on that road. They do not buy them just to redevelop the house, because their eyes are as much on the garden as the house itself. Some of the houses have stood for as long as 100 years. They are some of the most attractive urban houses in our constituencies, but after they have been bought for development, they are demolished and replaced by housing—often in the form of apartment blocks—that covers the whole footprint of the plot.
	Let me describe the consequences of that. The neighbours of such developments live in fear that the property their other side will also be bought. They fear going from living in a leafy street of family houses to being surrounded on both sides by apartment blocks, which was not the type of life that they expected to live. With understandable panic, those people sell to developers. A domino effect occurs on these roads—one after another—as houses fall prey to developers. In a short time, the character of some of our most prized areas is being completely destroyed, although we never would have considered that possible.
	There are three reasons why there is a problem, of which the first is the point about character. We should prize the parts of our towns and cities that are attractive to live in and have proved to be so for upwards of 100 years. They are part of the identity of our towns, and we should cherish and preserve them.
	The second reason is environmental. In towns and cities, our gardens are precious green lungs. They are havens for precious wildlife, insect and bird life. They clean and cool the air and keep down pollution. They also contribute to the drainage of our communities when we have problems with flooding and poor drainage throughout the country. If it were suggested that one of our urban parks or open spaces should be concreted over, there would be uproar and people would march on Parliament to protect those sites. However, as gardens are hidden from view behind houses rather than in public view, they go unnoticed, so little by little we are losing precious green spaces throughout the country.
	The third reason why we should be alarmed by such developments is that although we all want more social and affordable housing, many of the developments are sufficiently small to fall below the threshold that triggers the requirement for such housing. Developers can thus create high-end housing, which is often dense, without making the contribution to affordable development that they would be obliged to make if they were to develop a genuine brownfield site.
	What is to be done about it? I am not going to suggest that we should preserve every garden in the country in aspic—clearly that is not possible, and there is a difficult balance to be struck between housing need and protecting the character of our urban areas—but two principles should apply. The first is that the people who make the decisions should understand their communities. They should be familiar with the character of their areas and accountable to their local electorate. Better the town hall than the Minister in Whitehall when it comes to taking views on the character of a development. We should give back to local communities the power to decide those applications, and not have them taken remotely.
	Secondly, we should not kid ourselves that those are brownfield sites. They are not; they are greenfield sites. They are not what the brownfield site legislation was designed to protect. We delude ourselves if we think that we are making progress in developing brownfield sites when we are ploughing up people's back gardens, with the consequences that I have described. And I am afraid that we are deluding ourselves, because in a statement released just yesterday by the Minister for Housing and Planning, the ODPM praises the
	"new record high of 72 per cent."
	of home building on previously developed land—in other words, brownfield sites.
	In the context of my remarks today that achievement is dubious. We do not know what proportion of that 72 per cent. is gardens rather than industrial sites. In a parliamentary answer to a question that I asked, the Minister admitted on 11 January:
	"there is no information on any loss of privately owned green space."—[Official Report, 11 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 691W.]
	If we are to have a debate about housing and about balancing development and preserving the character of our towns, we should at least do so on the basis of clarity, honesty and knowing whether we are getting rid of industrial sites or gardens. That is not happening at the moment.
	This Bill seems to have struck a chord right across the country. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Labour Members and Liberal Democrat Members as well as Conservative Members have added their support to it, and that support has not just come from what one might think of as the leafy south-east. I have had messages of support from the valleys of south Wales, Rochdale, Rotherham and Doncaster, as well as from Teesside. The problem is shared across the country. To quote just one message of support, a correspondent from Rotherham said:
	"We feel that our local council is sympathetic to our distress and they agree that too many mini-estates are being crammed onto unsuitable sites. Unfortunately, we are told that planning permission will almost certainly be granted to avoid an appeal which will then overturn their decision."
	My Bill is simple in its intent: it would remove front and back gardens from the Government's definition of brownfield sites of previous development. If we are to be honest about brownfield sites, we owe it to ourselves to recognise the intention of the designation. If the idea of brownfield sites is to mean anything, it should be about improving the condition of our towns and villages and contributing to environmental progress, not about changing and destroying the characters of areas for ever.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Greg Clark, Michael Fabricant, Mrs. Jacqui Lait, John Penrose, Mr. David Burrowes, Mr. James Arbuthnot, Mr. Jeremy Hunt, Mr. Gerald Howarth, Ms Dari Taylor, Mr. Douglas Carswell, Mrs. Nadine Dorries and Mr. John Maples.

Protection of Private Gardens (Housing Development)

Greg Clark accordingly presented a Bill to protect private gardens from housing development which is out of character with the surrounding area; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 12 May, and to be printed [Bill 123].

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[12th Allotted Day]

Police Amalgamations

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the main business, which is an Opposition debate on the 12th allotted day on police amalgamations. I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

David Davis: I beg to move,
	That this House notes the Home Secretary's proposals to create regional strategic police forces in England and Wales; further notes the Association of Police Authorities' estimate that amalgamations could cost £600 million to implement; further notes that none of the proposed amalgamated forces has the unanimous agreement of the police authorities concerned; expresses concern about the implications of mergers for local accountability, neighbourhood policing and the level of police precepts; regrets the unnecessarily tight timetable for consultation; recognises that the potential changes are the most significant for over thirty years; and calls on the Government to consider alternative proposals to strengthen the ability of forces to deal with serious crime, including sharing services, as recommended by the Association of Police Authorities.
	This is an unusual Opposition debate. Usually, we have a few hours of political combat and knockabout, all of which is very enjoyable, but the Government then carry on as they did before. Today, I shall try something a little different, and offer the Government a serious chance of achieving their stated aim of finding a better way of dealing with serious crime with the wholehearted and consensual support of all the parties in the House.   That is appropriate, because the structure andaccountability of our police forces and the decentralisation of law enforcement is a constitutional issue that should be resolved on a cross-party basis.
	Let us start with what we agree on. We agree that we want to improve the ability of our police forces to deliver the so-called protective services that deal with murder, terrorism, cross-border crime and so on. We agree that the current organisation may be weak in some police forces on some of those issues. We agree that the policing teams—not necessarily the forces—that deal with those major issues should have the skills and resources to deal with them. Where possible, they should be able to develop experience in dealing with them.
	We do not agree that the organisation that is best suited to deal with terrorism is necessarily the best suited to deal with shoplifting, mugging or burglary. We do not agree that bigger is better for most aspects of policing. Indeed, other issues including the quality of management and leadership, technical skills, proper resourcing and local knowledge are far more important than any imaginary police force-wide economies of scale in the delivery of better policing.
	We do not agree that regionalism is a good model for emergency services in general or police forces in particular. We believe in localism. Regionalism is pseudo-localism, with all the disadvantages of centralisation masquerading under a local label. Most of all, however, we do not agree that this is a policy that should be analysed and proposed in a few months, barely debated, then imposed in a rush on an unwilling public and a number of unwilling police forces and authorities.
	Let us start with the analysis, the so-called O'Connor report entitled, "Closing the Gap". It is subtitled, "A Review of the 'Fitness for Purpose' of the Current Structure of Policing in England and Wales". The phrase, "Fitness for Purpose", is one of the many pieces of managerial jargon that afflict modern policing. The question is, fit for what purpose? No one could seriously believe that ever bigger and ever more remote police forces will deliver more responsive, effective and accountable policing of the local robberies, muggings, burglaries that intrude into too many people's lives.
	Nevertheless, the analysis in the O'Connor report implies that bigger is better when dealing with major crimes under the umbrella of protective services. The report and the Government response to it are flawed at three critical points: the original analysis; the plan and costing of proposals, such as they were; and the decision and timetable for implementation.
	Frankly, the best thing that I can do is to repeat the House the coruscating opinion of Professor Lawrance, a professor of statistics at Warwick university. He addressed the analysis, which claimed that police forces need to be 4,000-strong to do their job, and found that the quality of the statistical information was questionable and that the statistical treatment of the data and the use of computer-produced statistical elaborations unjustified. In his opinion, there was minimum professional statistical science input in the planning stages, the data analysis, its presentation and the conclusions that were drawn. He concluded by stating:
	"It cannot be presumed that there is a causative relation between protective service effectiveness and force size from rough trends on simple graphs.
	The conclusions drawn in respect of a 4,000 minimum force size almost totally ignore the variability of protective services performance in each force size, and no evidence is provided that this will be small at the 4,000 level.
	In short, there will be an unknown number of good and poor performers in re-formed larger forces."

Mark Francois: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

David Davis: In the last debate that we had on the   subject, I gave way over 30 times. Today, with an 8-minute rule, I shall restrict the number of times I give way, but I will do so on this occasion.

Mark Francois: I shall try to be brief. The Essex constabulary has considerable experience of fighting terrorism, not least because, as my right hon. Friend and the Government know, there are special facilities at Stansted. Also, on 7/7, the Essex police provided substantial assistance to the Met. Does my right hon. Friend agree, with respect to colleagues from East Anglia, that the Essex constabulary does not need to merge with other forces to learn how to fight terrorism?

David Davis: Yes. My hon. Friend is right and, if I remember correctly, he is supported in his views on the matter by Members representing Essex constituencies from all the major parties in the House, which is an important indication of the concern about the proposal. He raises another point. The Essex force, as he says, has special skills in dealing with terrorism. Other forces in other parts of the country have special skills in public order defence, or in dealing with border-related issues such as international crime. On the regional model proposed by the Government, we cannot be sure that any particular region has these special skills.
	One of the great advantages of a looser federated model is that a force could take advantage from one area of one set of special skills and another area for another set of special skills. Rejecting a one-size-fits-all model will help us get better policing across the board, not least at the high levels of protective services that the Government are concerned about.

John Denham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Davis: I will, but with the stricture that I made before. I am often keen to give way to Labour Members, normally the dimmer ones, but I will make an exception in this case, as the right hon. Gentleman is the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee.

John Denham: I am more grateful than usual. If the right hon. Gentleman is making the point that for a force of a certain size, there are a number of other factors as well as its size that determine whether it is good or not, of course that is true. Everyone would accept that. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, quite separate from the O'Connor report and that analysis, Sir David Phillips, chief constable of Kent and then president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, produced a position paper three or four years ago, adopted by ACPO, which reached almost exactly the same material conclusions as O'Connor about the optimum size of police forces? Is it not the case that that is not a one-off report, but a reflection of the dominant professional consensus in policing in Britain about the ideal size of police forces?

David Davis: I accept one point from the right hon. Gentleman. He is right that there are various views from leading senior police officers. My conversations with many members of ACPO indicate to me that that is not their current collective view. We will see what happens in the course of the debate in the coming days.
	I did not read the whole of Professor Lawrance's critique. I dispute the idea of an optimum size for a police force. That differs around the country. The right size of police force will be different in a big urban area such as Manchester from what it would be in East Yorkshire. A one-size-fits-all model is just plumb wrong. I am sure the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) has read the Lawrance report, as he is an assiduous Select Committee Chairman. He will have seen that if one took three of the bigger forces out of the 43 in the analysis, there would be no correlation whatever for any optimum size. The whole statistical analysis is based on a flawed concept, flawed data and a flawed analytical approach. The right hon. Gentleman's Committee will no doubt consider the matter again in the coming year or so and reach a similar conclusion.
	I have broken my stricture about interventions, but I shall try to make progress. The other concerns that arise are manifold. Let me go through them one by one. The first concerns accountability. Regional forces would cover a huge area. A south-west regional force—some Members from the south-west are present—would cover a massive 8,187 square miles. People living in the north of Gloucestershire are nearer to Scotland than they are to the south of Cornwall. The proposal is madness, if the aim is local identification and local accountability. Chief constables will be hundreds of miles away from many towns and villages. As I said last time, Kent officers could be closer to Calais than to their proposed regional headquarters. Inevitably, regional police forces will become more remote from the communities they are meant to serve.

Martin Salter: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Davis: Not for the moment. [Hon. Members: "He is one of the dimmer ones."] Exactly. The hon. Gentleman does not realise the temptation he places before me with respect to the concept of dimmer Labour Members. However, I will go to another one, the Prime Minister, and the House can make its own judgment. When he was shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield argued that
	"wholesale amalgamation of the smaller police services . . . will remove local policing further from local people when there is no evidence that it will create a more effective police service."—[Official Report, 5 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 273.]

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Davis: Not at the moment, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. [Interruption.] Yes, another dimmer one.
	Let us move to the issue of cost. The O'Connor report calls itself "Closing the Gap", but far from closing the gap, it will open a gaping black hole in the finances of our local police forces. Based on the submissions made by police authorities, the Association of Police Authorities estimates the cost of mergers to be over £525 million across England and Wales. As is the way with IT-based costings, I suspect that that is a grotesque underestimate. Indeed, the APA itself says the cost could be double that—£1 billion—when the associated costs of police restructuring are taken into account.
	Let us consider that conservative estimate, which is based on the submissions of individual authorities. The sum of £525 million represents an average of £12.5 million per police force. The Home Secretary belatedly offered just £125 million, less than a quarter of the funding necessary, to pay for amalgamations. What is more, the Home Secretary's promised funds are in any case being raided from the existing police capital budget, not new money. So resources that should have been spent on improvements to policing will be used to pay for management consultants, merged IT systems, new headquarters and the like, none of them making a contribution to better policing.
	More than £400 million must still be found by police authorities to finance amalgamations. There are only two places that they can get £400 million; they can borrow it or raise it through a higher precept on the council tax. We know where it will come from, don't we? Either way, in the end, the cost of the exercise will fall on the council tax payer. Assuming that police authorities do not cut services, the average police precept would rise by 21 per cent.—up to £37 on a band D property—on top of increases already planned and on top of the fact that the police precept has more than doubled in the past eight years in most cases.

Philip Davies: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

David Davis: Just this once.

Philip Davies: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Given that West Yorkshire police has calculated a cost of £50 million for the amalgamation, given that the force already meets the criteria set down by the Home Office and given that the merger is opposed by the local police authority and by hon. Members from both sides of the House, including the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr.   Truswell), who made an excellent speech in a previous debate on the matter, does my right hon. Friend agree that the £50 million cost would be much better spent on real policing than on an unnecessary merger?

David Davis: I agree with everything my hon. Friend said. The model is repeated throughout the country. I should, perhaps, explain to the House my softness in giving way to my hon. Friend. He is a namesake, he used to be a constituent of mine and his wife was my agent, so I had to give way.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Davis: The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) has none of those qualifications. Even if he keeps moving around, he will not fool me. I still recognise him.
	Let us remind ourselves what the exercise was meant to do. The exercise was meant to strengthen protective services—the ability of police forces to tackle serious crime—but not one penny of the £500 million spent on amalgamation will be invested in them. The numbers do not add up, which is one of the reasons why the Association of Police Authorities opposes the Government's plan.
	Last week, the APA asked the Government to consider the option of forces sharing services as an alternative to amalgamation, and at a recent Prime Minister's Question Time, the Prime Minister seemed to agree:
	"We have to listen to what people are saying and, obviously, there are different views about police reform. One possibility is for strategic coming together on certain issues, rather than mergers, but that has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis . . . The aim should be the most effective way to police local communities with the greatest amount of accountability and effectiveness. Obviously, we will listen carefully to what people say."—[Official Report, 25 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 1426–27.]
	Bravo.
	From the other side of the Dispatch Box, the Home Secretary keeps saying, "Quite right.", but I wish that he were as open-minded as he pretends to be. He has commented:
	"Some people think that a form of federation would be a more effective way of dealing with aspects of the situation than strategic forces. I take the view . . . that that is not the right approach".—[Official Report, 19 December 2005; Vol. 440, c. 1583.]
	The Chief Whip may not be the only one who makes a career-changing decision in the next few days.
	The Prime Minister is for sharing services, and the Home Secretary is against, so what is the Government's policy? Is the Home Secretary looking at federations with an open mind? The Prime Minister is often accused of wanting to associate himself with popular initiatives, and if he is successful in persuading the Home Secretary that the federated option is worth considering, this will be the one occasion when he will have our full support, whether he turns up or not.
	The Government are attempting to drive through the biggest reorganisation of the police for 40 years with little debate or consultation. Police authorities were given just three months to prepare their cases before Christmas. When police forces were last restructured in the 1960s, a royal commission was formed. It took two years to report, and there was then another two years of debate on the report before legislation was enacted. Denis O'Connor, the author of the report, believes that this process should take longer:
	"This process looks like five years and not 18 months to me".—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 29 November 2005; Vol. 440, c. 8WH.]
	The Home Secretary has already been rebuffed by the police authorities, which will not submit to his absurdly tight three-month deadline. He must realise that more time is needed to assess the costs of restructuring, the implications for accountability, the objections of local communities and potential alternatives to amalgamations, many of which are strongly opposed by police authorities, chief constables and local people.

Lembit �pik: rose

David Davis: For the sake of party fairness, I should make one concession. At a party conference, I once described the Liberal policy of tough liberalism as an oxymoron with the emphasis on the last two syllables.

Lembit �pik: The right hon. Gentleman is tough with a generous heart. He has made an important point about consultation. Does he agree that in many cases the people who oppose the Home Secretary's proposal do not have vested interests? If the Home Secretary listened, he would realise that serious crime is a consideration, but not the only consideration. Many people think that the proposal will seriously harm local crime management. For example, an all-Wales police force will pool resources in high-crime areas, leaving relatively low-crime areas to experience an increase in crime.

David Davis: I agree with almost every word the hon. Gentleman has said, despite his opening accusation of kindness, which is very dangerous for a Home Secretary.
	Returning to my opening remarks, even if we were not in this new age of consensual politics, I would still believe that every hon. Member wanted to ensure that our police forces are adequately equipped to tackle the myriad threats faced by the people of this country.
	The Home Secretary has already admitted that the widespread objections to the proposals have forced him to implement them in two stages. He has said that those forces happy to proceed will start in April 2007, while for those that object it will be April 2008. All the indications are that few, if not none, of the forces will agree to April 2007, so we are discussing April 2008, when most of the forces will be cajoled into submission with doubts about costs and accountability still rampant.
	For that reason, surely we should spend the next year on a proper period of consultation, which we should have had in the first place. During that time, precise costings could be made and other options, such as a federated structure, could be properly considered, just as the Prime Minister has suggested. Proper local consultation could be undertaken, with local referendumsI know that the Government do not like them any morewhere appropriate.
	If the Home Secretary does that, in most casesthe Home Secretary has a point in some parts of the countrythe option that will deliver the greatest ability to fight serious crime is the federated option of enhanced co-operation and sharing services between neighbouring forces. Indeed, 23 Labour Members have signed early-day motion 1393 to that effect.
	My proposal to the Home Secretary will enable him essentially to keep to his projected timetable while allowing us to exercise our constitutional obligation to ensure that our country's police forces are fit for purpose, which is fit for all purposes. If he chooses to dismiss it, he must explain why he has chosen to implement uncosted, unpopular, ineffective and undemocratic reforms with undue haste and inadequate consideration. Why has he chosen to spend 500 million to take half a step backwards?
	I will listen to the Home Secretary very carefully. If he is reasonable, we may not even force a vote. If he is not, however, we will revisit this issue time and time again in the coming weeks, months and, indeed, years until the serious inadequacies in the Government's proposals are dealt with in the interests of the British people.

Charles Clarke: I beg to move, To leave out from House to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	welcomes the excellent work of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) in clearly setting out the case for reform of the current structure of policing in England and Wales; thanks police forces and authorities for their hard work in responding to the HMIC findings; congratulates the Government on its commitment to delivering excellent policing at all levels, from vandalism to terrorism, through strategic police forces equipped with dedicated capacity at the neighbourhood level; and endorses the need for reform to move swiftly to minimise uncertainty and damage to morale within a service which has over the past eight years shown itself dedicated to continuous improvement in delivery of a truly locally responsive service.
	Labour Members have no aversion to votes, despite recent experience. I was excited when the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) described the constructive approach that he was going to adopt, but we did not hear a lot of it in a speech that consisted of a series of attacks of the traditional variety. As ever, I shall attempt to respond constructively.
	The issue concerns professional policing, and the process is not driven by politics or, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, a regional agenda. Everyone with a serious professional interest in policing accepts that the provision of protective services is deficient. The Association of Police Authorities has acknowledged that point, pointing out that the current 43-force structure is not strong enough to tackle organised gangs and nationally mobile criminals.
	The current president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Sir Chris Fox, has said that
	ACPO has long recognised that there is a need to restructure the police service to meet the threats and challenges of at least the next thirty years.
	Paul Scott-Lee, chief constable of the west midlands, has said that it would be better to serve the region with one force. Jon Stoddart, the chief constable of Durham, has said:
	Politics aside, the chief constables of Durham and Northumbria are united in their belief that, from a purely professional point of view, a regional force would reinforce and improve community policing as it now exists. At the same time it would enhance our ability to tackle terrorists, extremists, major emergencies and the 'Mr. Bigs' of serious and organised crime.
	Only yesterday, the chief constable of North Yorkshire said that
	there is a powerful and persuasive case indicating that, far from being diminished, the quality of neighbourhood policing, and the status of the local Basic Command Unit will be significantly enhanced by regional amalgamation.
	Let me go through the different regions. In the west midlands, three of the four forces think that some form of amalgamation is necessary, while one is very concerned. In the north-east, two are in favour and one is concerned. In the north-west, a form of amalgamation is supported by most of the forces in the region. In Wales

Several hon. Members: rose

Charles Clarke: I will give way in a moment.
	In Wales, many forces accept the idea of a national force to deal with these circumstances.
	The point that I am trying to make is that it is wrong to suggest, as some do, that there is total opposition to these changes or that the policy is politically driven. It is professionally driven: professional police officers think that it is the right way to go.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I assure my right hon. Friend that representatives of the Association of Police Authorities in south Wales, whom we met last week, and the chief constable of the South Wales police force and her colleagues not only accept the main thrust of these proposals but recognise that local and democratic accountability will come through the neighbourhood policing model, which was not mentioned at all by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis). Does my right hon. Friend think it somewhat unfair that the Tory Front-Bench spokesman has as a motto, Tough on crime, tough on interventions by the Member for Ogmore?

Charles Clarke: I would have thought that that was the authentic voice of Davis. I intend to talk at some length about neighbourhood policing.

Several hon. Members: rose

Charles Clarke: I want to make a little more progress before I give way again.
	I want to emphasise that the professional view that we need change to deal with serious and organised crime, counter-terrorism and major stretches of forces is not new. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) made the case about Sir David Phillips' report. The Closing the Gap report was a consequence of a large number of similar proposals in the past. Even under the previous Conservative Government, a White Paper was published in 1993, which said: This patternof 43 forces
	is partly the result of historical accident and the merging of organisations which were established haphazardly over more than 100 years . . . The result today is a patchwork quilt of forces of widely varying sizes and types.
	It continued:
	It is questionable whether 43 separate organisations are now needed to run police operations and whether the maintenance of 43 parallel organisations makes the most effective use of the resources available to policing.
	Those are very similar to Sir Denis O'Connor's words about being fit for purpose, which the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden criticised.

Several hon. Members: rose

Charles Clarke: I will give way in a moment, as I said.
	We must be clear that it is our dutycertainly my duty as Home Secretary, but also our duty across the Houseto find the most effective way of enabling the professional views of our police service best to protect the public and then to go ahead and implement them without delay. The problems addressed by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary are problems that we face nowthey will not go away, as they have not gone away in the past. In fact, the inspectorate was clear in its report that they would get worse if we failed to act.

Andrew Selous: Last week, Bedfordshire MPs from all parties met Bedfordshire police authority, which believes that the cost of the Home Secretary's reforms will affect the number of officers on the ground. I tabled a written parliamentary question on that matter last week. Can the Home Secretary enlighten the House about it?

Charles Clarke: There is absolutely no reason to say that. In fact, I quoted a chief constable making exactly the point that neighbourhood policing will be strengthened, not weakened, by this approach. I will return to that later in my remarks.

David Taylor: A week ago today, Mr. Barry Roper, the independent vice-chairman of Leicestershire police authority, lobbied Leicestershire MPs, including me. Will the Home Secretary acknowledge that there can be a dichotomy of views between an area's police authority and its police force? Would he care to comment on how he intends to react to that?

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. There is a range of views about these questions within policing. There are different views between professional police officers, as there sometimes are between chief constables and police authority members. That is part of the debate that we should have. I do not argue that there is a uniformity of view that this is the right thing to do, because that is not so. I do argue, however, that serious professional policing opinion at the level of the inspectorate and others has taken that view consistently.

Several hon. Members: rose

Charles Clarke: I shall give way one more time before making more progress.

Paul Keetch: Has not the Home Secretary identified part of the problem? The police forces that support this proposal are by and large metropolitan police forces covering large metropolitan areas. In the west midlands, for example, West Mercia, which covers Herefordshire, Shropshire and Worcestershire, has real concerns. Rural communities are in danger of losing out, because resources will go from relatively low-crime rural areas into higher-crime urban areas. Is not that why so many rural forces are concerned about his proposals?

Charles Clarke: I think that that description is completely wrong. In the west midlands region, for example, Staffordshire and Warwickshire, which have many rural areas, support the changes. Northumbria, a force that has great swathes of rural population, some of which is very sparse, supports the changes. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman would categorise County Durham as a rural or an urban force, but it certainly has substantial rural areas, and it supports the changes. He rightly says that there are issues in West Mercia, but it is not the kind of area that he describes.

Tom Levitt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposal by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) for a loose federation of constabularies combines the worst of all possible options, first, by not delivering economies of scale at the delivery end and, secondly, by bringing in an additional tier of bureaucracy that can only make things worse?

Charles Clarke: I agree. That gives me the opportunity to make some progress in addressing precisely that point.
	Sir Ronnie Flanagan describes existing collaborative arrangements as woefully inadequate and adds that they
	fail to deliver sustained resourcing for preventive or developmental work.
	At a different level, Rick Naylor, who leads the Superintendents Association, says:
	The present structure gets in the way of co-operation and working across boundaries. We have tried collaboration and it has not worked.
	There are instances of useful collaborationfor example, in providing training for officers, often in reactive response to civil contingencies. The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), who is no longer in his place, rightly mentioned Essex's support for the Met after 7/7. Mutual aid can be very strong and effective. It was required, for example, during the recent fire at the Buncefield oil storage facility, where the Metropolitan police service and Bedfordshire constabulary provided support for Hertfordshire in an effective operation.
	I do not in any sense decry the view that collaboration can offer solutions and benefitsit can. However, the Closing the Gap report demonstrated that that was not a good enough basis for the continuous intelligence and preventive work that is essential for good protective services. The common element of the types of crime that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden described is that in the modern 21st-century police service we must not only predict and prevent but recognise and react. Intelligence gathering and preparation are absolutely critical, and we need resources dedicated to proactively gathering intelligence and making links that deal with that in a variety of ways.
	Many of the business cases submitted by forces and authorities state that, under the current structure, if their forces were to experience sustained demand on protective services, local policing would suffer. We need solutions for each area. I agree that it is not a one-size-fits-all model, which is why the regional picture that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden described is not correct. We look at each case and consider what to do in the light of the professional advice that we receive. We are going through options case by case. The first crucial hurdle that every option, whatever it is, has to clear is to demonstrate operational viability in terms of delivering protective services. I hope shortly to be in a position to make an announcement on those options identified as operationally viable, and we will then discuss with forces the best way to proceed.

Several hon. Members: rose

Charles Clarke: I will go on to talk about neighbourhood policing, which I see as absolutely central, and the basic command unit, but before doing so I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham).

Jim Cunningham: The west midlands was mentioned earlier. West Midlands police responded tremendously to a bomb scare, for want of a better term, in Birmingham. It showed how well a police force can operate when it gets it act together. However, one of the biggest fears about a merger is that in some areasfor example, Coventry, although we have a big police forceit is often difficult to find somebody in charge on a Saturday, or Sunday, when incidents occur in neighbourhoods. The public expect Members of Parliament to be able to get through to a senior police officer, but it is difficult. Will my right hon. Friend look into that?

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is right. That is precisely why we have made the development of neighbourhood policing teams central to our policing strategy. The strategy at basic command unit levelfor example, at the level of the city of Coventryis for the police to work with other agencies to tackle crime in the locality. A key test is whether such a strategy will help or hinder neighbourhood policing and the development of a proper basic command unit structure. My hon. Friend is right to highlight that.

Albert Owen: The Home Secretary said that there was support in Wales for the proposals in the report. A parliamentary written answer from the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety suggested that there had been a joint submission from all forces in Wales. However, the North Wales police authority appears to favour closer collaboration with Cheshire. Will my right hon. Friend take that on board?

Charles Clarke: I certainly shall. My hon. Friend is correct. There are doubts in the police force and among parliamentary colleagues from different parties in north Wales about the wisdom of an all-Wales basis for policing, and serious issues have been raised. As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety and I have discussed how best to tackle them with the police force and Members of Parliament. We are therefore listening. I emphasise that, in the rest of Wales, there is a view that an all-Wales force is the right way forward, but we shall take account of my hon. Friend's point.

Stephen O'Brien: I want to establish the Home Secretary's good faith, having listened carefully to his response to the hon. Member for Ynys Mn (Albert Owen). Cheshire has made it clear that intelligence as well as crime economyfor want of a better phrasearguments favour putting north Wales and Cheshire together, rather than putting Cheshire with others in a region called the north-west. If the Home Secretary is truthful about listening, he should wipe away all the administrative boundary constraints, within which North Wales and Cheshire police must fit, and get them together.

Charles Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is right in an important respect: the crime marketplace runs from Liverpool to north Wales; in south Wales, it runs down the M4 corridor. Examples could be given in every part of the country of the need for collaboration to tackle such circumstances, wherever the border falls.
	However, the hon. Gentleman asked me why regional boundaries were important. The reason is that they are important[Interruption.] Let me be clear. The police will tell all hon. Members who ask that collaboration with other public serviceshealth, education or any other serviceis central to improving policing and reducing crime. Increasingly, such collaboration is the way to reduce crime and it is therefore necessary. Other services recognise regional boundaries and that is why I said that police structures should consider that. I said previously that it is not an absolute requirement that one should not cross a regional boundary because there may be cases of the sort that have been mentioned. However, I said publicly in September that the case for not respecting the regional boundary in our work would need to be powerful. That is a reasonable position for a Home Secretary to adopt.

John Baron: Terrorism and other such subjects have been mentioned. However, residents in Essex are genuinely worried that, at a time of increasing antisocial behaviour and violent crime, the reorganisation will distance policing from local people. That is the key concern, not only in Essex but other parts of the country. At the same time, the reorganisation threatens to increase cost when the police levy in the council tax has already doubled since 1998. What would the Home Secretary say to my constituents?

Charles Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is right about the concern that exists. I believe that people's major anxiety, reflected in the earlier debate on the proposals, which come from professional police but are supported by the Government, is that policing will move away from the local community. I shall now deal with that precise point.
	Let us consider the levels of policing. First, there is neighbourhood policing, which roughly covers a local authority ward. There should be a neighbourhood policing team, with police officers and police community support officers working with the community, so that a force serves its specific needs and cannot be abstracted from it. That is a central policy. It was part of our manifesto in the election and it will be driven through. I shall give an example shortly.
	Secondly, the level above the neighbourhood or ward is the local authority area, which the basic command unit covers. A structure should exist at that level for the partnership that I described earlier, whether we are considering Coventry, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) referred, or any other community in the country. For example, in Essex and, in my case, in Norwich, there should be a relationship between the basic command unitthe BCUand other services.
	Given the anxieties that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) expressed, I want to explain how we ensure that neighbourhood policing happens. He is right that his constituents are worried about that. First, we will provide ring-fenced funding, whereby we can ensure that the money is spent on implementing neighbourhood policing. It totals approximately 80 million this year, rising to more than 130 million in 200607 and nearly 390 million the year after that to help forces with the costs of moving towards our target of 24,000 police community support officers. A condition of receiving the funding is that police authorities and forces have to sign up to fulfilling the criteria of the neighbourhood policing programme, which the chief constable of Leicestershire is leading. Police community support officers are vital to those teams. We therefore have ring-fenced funding to provide neighbourhood policing.
	Secondly, the Government, with the Association of Chief Police Officers, are providing a programme of support and guidance, to ensure that all forces have effective police teams. The Association of Chief Police Officers is leading a programme of support, evaluation and programme management to ensure that the programme is delivered in every police area in the country. As part of that, it provides professional guidance for neighbourhood policing teams and BCU commanders, and training to ensure that all officers are committed to implementing the target. If forces fail to implement the programme effectively, the programme team will intervene to support and help drive progress.
	If, after such support, forces continue to fail to deliver the neighbourhood policing that the constituents of the hon. Member for Billericay wantfor example, knowing the names, addresses and phone numbers of local officers whom they can contact about any problem that ariseswe have the power to intervene. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary will begin to conduct specific inspections of neighbourhood policing later this year. If it is not being performed according to agreed national standardsagreed with and by the policethe inspectorate will develop an improvement plan with the force, as happens when any force fails an inspection. If the force continued to underperformthat is extremely unlikelyit could lead to engaging the police standards unit. Ultimately, it is possible for the Home Secretary to intervene directly.
	I am trying to stress that the neighbourhood policing element, which the hon. Member for Billericay rightly raises, is the key concern. I believe that we have a substantial programme in place to implement the policy. Every chief constable in the country is committed to developing neighbourhood policing. I therefore hope that the sanctions that we have discussed will be unnecessary. The policy is essential.

Martin Horwood: I thank the Home Secretary for his verbal commitment to the principle of neighbourhood policing. However, has not the trend under the Government gone in the opposite direction? Sir Denis O'Connor's report states:
	When HMIC started the current BCU inspection process there   were nearly 320 BCUs in existence, but in only three years the pressures to achieve resilience, financial efficiency and co-terminosity have seen this figure fall to approximately 230.
	The BCUs are becoming bigger and less accountable. That is the reality of community policing under the Government.

Charles Clarke: Actually, I do not think that that is the reality. If we look at neighbourhood policing, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman has, we can see it developing much more. I will respond to the point about BCUs in a moment.

Robert Flello: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Stoke-on-Trent in Staffordshire is probably a good example of what he has been describing? We have a large rural force combined with a metropolitan force. The chief constable is based down the road at Stafford, some miles removed from Stoke-on-Trent both geographically and in terms of the local environment, yet in Stoke-on-Trent the chief superintendent, John Woodwho was recognised in the new year's honours for his outstanding workis putting in place just the kind of local policing that my right hon. Friend describes, through the systems that are in place in Stoke-on-Trent, and working at community level.

Charles Clarke: One of the exciting things about doing this job is that, when I go to communities such as Stoke and meet the borough commanders and local inspectors who are dealing with these issues, I can see that their commitment, engagement and excitement in delivering these programmes is real. This is not something that we are having to put in place against the wishes of the policing professionals; exactly the reverse is the case. They want to deal with these problems more effectively; my hon. Friend is right.

Anne Milton: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that coterminosity is important? In Surrey, it is therefore important for the Surrey police to stay where they are, coterminous with Surrey county council. If the police force were merged with that of Sussex or Kent, it would be coterminous with nobody.

Charles Clarke: The key issue is coterminosity with the local district council area, and that is how it should be.
	I will take the hon. Lady's question as a cue to talk about the BCU relationship, which has rightly been identified as extremely important. I want to emphasise that, through the Bill that was published last week, we are significantly strengthening accountability, so that the BCUs and the crime and disorder reduction partnershipsthe CDRPswill be more accountable to local communities. It will therefore be much more difficult for forces to ignore the BCU-level demands of those communities.
	First, we are introducing national standards, to which the CDRPs must adhere, to provide a minimum quality of service. Secondly, we will ensure that elected councillors responsible for community safety take a personal lead in setting community safety priorities. One of the problems has been that elected local authority councillors have not always been able to give this work the priority that their constituents would wish. The key strategic issues will be set by the CDRP's members, the elected councillors, rather than by officials.
	We will also ensure, through the national standards, that the CDRPs continue the consultation with their communities and develop it so as to reflect the concerns of local people. There will be scrutiny of the work of the CDRPs by local authority scrutiny committeesagain, in the classic way, through local governmentand inspection by the inspectorate in the relevant area. All of this will make it much more difficult for a chief constable or a police authority to circumscribe or weaken the discretion of a BCU commander.
	Beyond that, we are introducing measures to ensure that, even where they do not succeed, communities will still have the ability to get their particular problems addressed, even if the overarching force is not involved. To deal with circumstances in which issues are not being addressed, we are legislating in the Police and Justice Bill to provide a mechanismwhich we are calling the community call for actionwhereby people living or working in a particular area can initiate action by the BCU commander or the local authority chief executive. The new legislation will give the Home Secretary the power to intervene to force the police authorityand, through it, the police forceto take BCU-level issues seriously and to give the BCU-level commanders the support that they need to get the job done.
	The concern expressed both by Labour and Opposition Members that this reform will lead to the police being distanced from the local community is, I accept, a well-founded fear, in the sense that it is a description of the state of affairs that exists. However, it is not founded in reality. The process that we have set out to promote neighbourhood policing and to develop the basic command unit will apply throughout the country in ways that will materially change the situation.

Bob Spink: The right hon. Gentleman has been extremely generous in giving way. He is right to say that some change is necessary. Will he at least acknowledge, however, that the police authorities were right to resist the Home Office deadline before Christmas, and that they acted in the public interest in so doing, because they have facilitated a fuller consultation that will deliver better solutions for neighbourhood policing and enable the Home Secretary to consider Her Majesty's Opposition's proposal to work together to get the answer right?

Charles Clarke: I am sorry to say that the hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. What actually happened was that just about every force in the countryall but one or two, I thinksubmitted proposals to me as requested. There were a number of authorities that did not make a proposal, although the force in their area did. The Association of Police Authorities then put out what was, in my opinion, an extremely ill-judged press release shortly before Christmas, suggesting that people were not responding when in fact they were. We had very good responses. The hon. Gentleman is right, however, to suggest that the key element is neighbourhood policing.

Tobias Ellwood: In regard to the communication that exists at the moment, Dorset MPs have a very close relationship with the chief constable. If we create a super-force for the south-west, that relationship would change fundamentally. The worst case scenario would be that the power, influence and responsibility that we have in regard to the police force would be transferred from the House to the regional assemblies. In the case of the south-west, that would involve the most undemocratic, unrepresentative and unelected body in the entire area.

Charles Clarke: At the risk of intervening in difficult debates about regionalism, I think that I can say with some confidence that the prospect of an elected regional assembly in the south-west region is some little way away. The accountability of neighbourhood policing that we want to achieve is certainly to the House but, even more importantly, to the local community. That accountability should exist at the level of the basic command unit, the district council or the unitary authority, directly to the people in that area by the means that I have described. If the hon. Gentleman believes in accountability, I hope that he will agree that the police in Dorset should be accountable not only to the Houseimportant though that isbut to the people in his constituency in the direct way that I am establishing.

Several hon. Members: rose

Charles Clarke: I will not give way. I want to conclude my speech.
	The problems that we face today are stubborn, persistent and serious, and no one should try to hide that fact. That is the view of policing professionals in this country[Interruption.] And it is the view of the Home Secretary. It is the view of the Home Secretary as advised by policing professionals. I am not just making a political point for a political reason. I am looking at the professional policing needs of the country.
	Present policing structures have shown themselves to be very able to deliver in terms of reducing volume crime and providing a good local service. However, the present structures have failed to deliver a dynamic, forward-looking and strategic response to the problems of organised criminality, terrorism, and nationally mobile criminals. On the basis of the assurances that I have given, particularly on neighbourhood policing and the basic command units, I hope that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden will urge his colleagues not to vote for his motion today. I should be interested to see how things go if they do.

David Davis: I should be very happy to take the Home Secretary up on his offer. I have said that, if he is willing to have an open consultation on this issuein some cases involving referendums, in the parts of the country where people have concernswe shall not press this point. However, the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) made it clear that people feel inhibited even from making submissions, because they believe that the Home Secretary will not pay attention. Cross-border policing is just one example of the issues involved. If the Home Secretary will now tell the House that the Government will hold an open consultation in the time that he has availableafter all, he is not going to be able to implement this until nearly 2008and look at all the options, including federation, with an open mind, we will not press this matter to a vote.

Charles Clarke: All that I will say on that is that we have had an open consultation[Interruption.] We certainly have, and many submissions have been made by policing professionals. By the way, we have also had quite a large number of debates in the House and elsewhere on these questionssome in Opposition time, some in Government time. I therefore urge colleagues on both sides of the House to support the amendment tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and to help us to take forward this important reform of policing, which will improve the security of people throughout the country.

David Heath: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) for selecting this subject for debate. It is an enormously important matter. I also congratulate him on the tone in which he introduced the debate. This matter should not be fought on strictly party political linesit is too important for that. I freely admit that in the many years that I have spent speaking about policing matters in the House, I have often found myself in agreement with him, as I have with the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety on some of the things that she has been trying to achieve in the police service. We would often share an agenda, for instance, on neighbourhood policing.
	That is not to say that I agree with the proposal today on amalgamation. If, as the Home Secretary has declared, we have had an open consultation, it must have been some time over the Christmas holidays, I guess[Interruption.] Yes, we did not notice it at the time. A police restructuring of such a massive scale must have a real question mark against it. Even those who support it wholeheartedlythere are some who willcannot deny that a reorganisation of structures of this sort will be costly and difficult, and will divert police attention away from their core duties at, I believe, a critical time for the country. It will also be divisive because different views will be expressed.
	None of those is a decisive argument in itself against making changes in the police servicenot if there is an overwhelming case in support of the Government's proposals. However, there is no overwhelming case. Even if there were, none of that would suggest the sort of precipitate action that the Home Secretary suggests, given his time scale for developing a structure that suits the country, which would normally take a great deal of consideration both by the House and, more importantly, by those outside the House. To have bypassed that whole procedure in favour of a consultation that was brief to the point of cursory, followed by a decision that I do not believe to be in the interests of the country, is not the way in which we should approach such a serious matter.

Philip Hollobone: In the spirit of cross-party consensus, may I share with the hon. Gentleman the views of Dr. Marie Dickie, the Labour chairman of the Northamptonshire police authority, which, together with the four other authorities in the east midlands, has been considering the potential impact of the proposals? She estimates that the up-front cost will be 100 million, and that all five authorities involved will end up with fewer police on the beat if they are to provide the level 2 services that the Home Secretary wants to be provided.

David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I know Dr. Dickie well, because she was chair of the police authority when I was chairman of my police authority in Avon and Somerset, and we worked on the same committees together. I am sure that she will take a sober and sensible view of the cost to her authority.
	What the hon. Gentleman says underlines the fact that the Home Secretary makes great play of the professional consensus that he believes existsbut no such consensus exists. Across the country, only 13 forces want to take part in a merger. Police authorities and forces are not voting with their feet to embrace the new structure, they are rejecting it. Thirteen of them say that they want to stay as stand-alone forces and another 15 have not expressed a preference. It is simply nonsense to suggest that there is a clear professional view that the proposals are the way forward.
	Even the O'Connor report, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) pointed out in an earlier debate on the issue, was not conclusive. It stated:
	To conclude, the answers to the two questions that prefaced this section are: The current structure of policing probably does not support the efficient and affordable provision of protective services and support services; and yes, there is evidence that changes in that structure might provide a more efficient basis for service provision.
	That is an invitation to open a debate. It is not an invitation to settle the structure of police forces for the next half-century.

Paul Keetch: One other area on which the debate has not so far touched is recruitment. I know police officers in HerefordI was at school with three police officers who serve in my local divisionwho have said to me that they would not have joined a west midlands force, had one existed, for fear of being transferred from Herefordshire, not to Worcestershire, Gloucestershire or similar rural communities but to Wolverhampton, Birmingham or wherever. They believe that there is a future recruitment problem, especially for small rural forces, as people would not join such a force if there was such a danger.

David Heath: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point.
	If we return to the underpinning of the whole argument, which is how we effectively fight international and national crime, we must examine the Government's rhetoric. No so long ago, we discussed the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the Bill to bring it into effect. However, that agency does not come into force until 1 April 2006. Even before the ink is dry on that legislation, and even before we have that new structure, we are proposing to throw all the building blocks up in the air again and redesign the way in which we fight organised crime in this country. There was no mention of amalgamation of police forces when we discussed that question. There was no suggestion that the agency was unable to work with existing police forces. Now, however, we are to believe that it is untenable to retain the current police forces.

Philip Dunne: In relation to the lack of foresight, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the idea of amalgamating basic command units into a regional structure is untested and highly vulnerable? In West Mercia, which the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr.   Keetch) discussed, we have six basic command units. If amalgamated into a regional structure, the chief constable will have 30 basic command unit commanders. In virtually any other sphere of endeavour, maintaining the relationship for direct reports with 30 people, rather than six, is almost impossible. The chief constable will have a much less direct relationship with what is going on in local areas.

David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point. I know that he has experience of management structures and speaks with some authority.
	If we are considering alternative structures, particularly for dealing with major, national and international crime, we should return to our consideration of the legislation that introduced the Serious Organised Crime Agency. I advocated an expanded role for that agency, so that it would be the clear vehicle for fighting national and international crime. I also called for chief constables to re-concentrate efforts on local policing, keeping the peace in their areas and fighting local crime. I still believe that that is a better structure for this country's police forces.
	Regional police forces are neither one thing nor the other. They are a nationalised police force, but we have 12 of them. Why? Where is the logic in that? I could understand more easily if the Home Secretary were to say that there would be a national police force and that that was the end of it. A national police force based in Scotland Yard would be just as relevant to people in Penzance as a national police force based in Gloucestershire. We should recognise that.

David Howarth: May I put to my hon. Friend a point to which the Home Secretary seems unwilling to listenthe political equivalent of the point that he just made about the operational side? The question is, what is the long-term future for police authorities in a world in which they are becoming increasingly remote and unrepresentative, and in which, as the Home Secretary made clear, accountability is shifting to district councils and to neighbourhood level? In the long term, will not that reduction of the police authorities' role undermine the legitimacy of their taxation role, which is currently the basis of their overall role?

David Heath: My hon. Friend has made an important point about the governance of the new authorities. I have not yet heard a satisfactory explanation from the Government of how that governance will work and how it can be in any way representative. I have heard some interesting ideas about local accountability at basic command unit and neighbourhood level, which I am willing to entertain. That is one matter, but governance of the forceensuring that its resources are appropriate to the areas that are policedhas not been considered so far.
	There are different ways of approaching issues relating to the future of policing, and some operations do not make sense at force level any more. I am entirely unconvinced, for example, that it makes any sense for there to be 43 special branch departments across the country, given the realities of the threat that we face, and I should be happy to consider a change in that arrangement. However, the kernel of the Government's case is that we need better co-ordination, better communication and better sharing of resources, and we know that that is possible without huge structures that may, in fact, militate against effective use of those resources.

James Brokenshire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath: I want to make a little more progress.
	I do not think that the Home Office is taking account of what has happened in local forces over recent years. No doubt the Home Office was shaken by the events in Soham and the subsequent inquiry, which revealed serious deficiencies in some small forces. We cannot get away from that and it is right for the Home Secretary to deal with the position. We clearly need better co-ordinationbut the idea that that can be achieved only by means of large regional structures is, I think, quite wrong.
	As has often been pointed out, the problem with regional structures is that they are not consistent with patterns of crime. Regional boundaries do not map the areas where criminal activity takes place. North Wales and Cheshire have already been mentioned, but the position is replicated in South Wales. For that matter, Avon and Somerset and Gwent form a single crime area, but no one has yet entertained the possibility of a merger between them.

Annette Brooke: Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Heath: My hon. Friend probably wants to mention Dorset, so I shall give way to her.

Annette Brooke: I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that there is obviously a strong case for a federation in our south-west region, and most of us consider that that would be the best solution. I hope that he also agrees that there is a second option that should be considereda merger between Dorset and Hampshire. Common sense suggests, as any police officer in Dorset will confirm, that that is the answer if the Government continue to insist on mergers.

David Heath: I entirely agree. I speak as a Somerset man with a constituency bordering on Dorset, but I know that the patterns of crime do not extend from Bristol or Plymouth to Dorset; they extend from Southampton and Portsmouth. The logic of sticking to the Government's office boundaries escapes me; it just does not make sense in operational terms.

Mark Harper: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath: I will make some more progress, if I may.
	The Home Secretary is absolutely right about local policing. Those outside the cosy world of politics or policing see their local police force as something that belongs to them. They are already worried about the remoteness of policing and the fact that, particularly in rural areas, they are less likely to see police officers than they were in the past. They worry about the possible retreat of the entire criminal justice system from their localities.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) made a valid point about the size of basic command units. The trend in recent years has been to merge BCUs so that a single unit covers perhaps an entire county in administrative terms. That runs entirely counter to the Home Secretary's objectives.
	Even all the assurances that the Home Secretary is able to give can be given only in the context of his policies at the present time in the present Administration. Once the new structures are in place, they will be capable of being enormously remote from the people whom they serve.

Robert Flello: The hon. Gentleman speaks of people's concern about whether local police officers will be able to serve their communities. A serving police constable told me that when he wants information from an adjoining force, he must rely on telephoning and hoping he will be able to contact an officer in the department with which he is dealing. He can only hope that the officer is on duty, and is not on holiday. If the officer is available, the constable must ask him to log into his computer system and call up the information that will enable the constable to deal with the case that he is handling. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what people want is for police forces to work together properly, and that the present system does not achieve that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) answers that question, may I point out that many Members have not yet learned the art of the short intervention? Long interventionsparticularly on a day when a great many Members wish to speak and there is a limited amount of timeeat into the time rather badly. Interventions must be brief.

David Heath: I can only tell the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Flello) that if his police commander in Stoke-on-Trent is encountering such problems with Stafford, one wonders what problems he will encounter when he has to ring Birmingham.
	As has been established, the estimated initial costs will be up to 600 million. We must add to that the cost of restructuring all the other parts of the criminal justice system, including those that are coterminous and consonant with the present police authority boundaries. All of them will have to be changed. I think that the 1 billion estimate is not unrealistic for the total cost of the exercise. Then there are the capital costs, which it seems will have to be met by the council tax payer. We are talking about a significant amount, which could be better spent on more police officers for our streets and lanes.
	Let me end by describing some personal experiences from my time as chairman of Avon and Somerset police authority. I should say at the outset that Avon and Somerset was a merged force. Many people in Somerset strongly resent the fact that they are policed by something called the Avon and Somerset police force, based in Portishead rather than in their own area. There is already some resentment about the potential remoteness of Avon and Somerset. Now it may become part of a south-west regional force which it has been suggested will cover 8,000 square milesalthough it is nearer 9,000 if we include the Isles of Scillyand whose northernmost point is nearer to Scotland than to the tip of Cornwall. There are huge demographic variations in a region that runs from the St. Paul's area of Bristol to Exmoor, where policing problems are very different. This is, therefore, clearly a difficult and dangerous course to follow.
	When I was chairman of the Avon and Somerset authority, we were able to make links. We shared a helicopter with the Gloucestershire force. That was a very good idea because we did not need two helicopters, one in Gloucester and one in Bristol. Links of that sort make sense.

John Denham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath: I will have to give way to the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that no one shouts at me afterwards that I have taken too long.

John Denham: Three or four years ago, when I was the Minister responsible for policing, air support for police services was held back throughout England because in most places forces insisted on bidding for their own helicopter or light planewhich they could not affordand refused to co-operate with neighbouring forces. If the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at the evidence on that issue, he will see that it runs against the point that he is making.

David Heath: Perhaps I was extraordinarily progressive in my police authority area, but are these not lessons that can be learned by other police authorities without scrapping the entire structure of British policing in the process? I think that they are.
	Members may wonder why my authority is still called the Avon and Somerset police authority, given that Avon has not existed for some time, thanks to a ghastly Conservative creation and the process of local government reorganisation. The reason is that my police authority colleagues and I refused to spend money on providing new cap badges and new headings on stationery. I thought then that the money could be better spent on policing, and I think that now in respect of this restructuring.
	The issue is not keeping rigidly to the current structuresanyone planning policing in Britain from the start would not devise the current structuresbut asking sensible and intelligent questions about those structures, making mergers where appropriate and where supported by local communities and police forces, and improving co-ordination, sharing and communication. However, the issue is also how we go about retaining the basic principle of British policingthat it is by, with and for the community, not by, with and for the state. There is a saying that all politics is local. I should like to say that all policing is local but, sadly, in the modern world it is not. We have to make appropriate arrangements to deal with national and international crime, but a lot of policing is local and is best done locally.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, which operates from now.

John Denham: In my contribution to this important debate, I want to distinguish between the process that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is following during this reorganisation, and the aim that we should have in terms of a future force structure.
	One problem with the debate in this House and in the country is that criticisms of how the reorganisation is being carried through are being used to justify opposition to change itself. That poses a serious threat to our ability to deliver the right policing structure for fighting crime and delivering law and order at all levelsfrom the most local to national and international. It is very important not to make the mistake of saying that, because some Members do not like the way in which the Government are going about the process, the case for change is therefore wrong. The case for change is very powerful indeed.
	As most people have recognised, no one would try to design the current police force structure to meet the needs of policing in England and Wales. This curious mixture of Anglo-Saxon boundaries, with bits of 1960s and 1970s local government reform thrown in, belongs to an age when crime was less mobile and more local, and when the patterns of urban deprivation and rural crime were quite different from today. We have to face up to a fundamental problem: in trying to meet the challenges that policing faces today, our existing structures cannot simply be adjusted by a series of minor and incremental changes.
	Because this issue concerns many of our constituentspeople whom we respect, such as those serving on police authorities, do indeed have genuine concernsand because we are all politicians with an ear to what our constituents are telling us, the danger is that we will respond by saying, The case for change isn't madehere is an alternative. That is not the right approach. We need to recognise that it is very difficult for smaller forces to make their full contribution to all the types of policing that need to be carried out in our communities, from dealing with antisocial behaviour to counter-terrorism.
	The police performance results show clearly that many small forces do welloften, it must be said, in not the most challenging of circumstanceson volume crimes such as car crime, burglary and antisocial behaviour. However, few small forces can also make the necessary full contribution to more serious, regional and national crime. That presents a real difficulty. We cannot have a policing pattern in England and Wales that means that only some forces can make their full contribution to dealing with all types of crime.
	The Government could have chosen, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) proposed, to adopt a case-by-case approach by mopping up a few weak forces, and so on. There is fine balance to be struck between proceeding in that way and in the way in which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has chosen. In terms of the politics of introducing such change, the case-by-case approach would have been a great deal easier. However, it does present the difficulty of painting oneself into a corner: one changes this bit here and that bit there, only to discover that three quarters of the floor is painted and there is no way out of the room. At least the Government's approach has the advantage of trying to paint a rational overall picture.
	The two major alternatives to the Government's approach are federation and the FBI model, which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome did not push with half the strengthhe was very wise not to do sothat the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) previously did. As a step from where we are to somewhere a bit better, federation has some attractions, but no sensible person would design a system based on an incoherent pattern of police forces that one then urges to work together more effectively. That would not be a logical approach.

Martin Horwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Denham: Just the once; the hon. Gentleman knows about the strictures on time.

Martin Horwood: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the incoherent pattern of forces several times in his speech, but in fact, the pattern in rural areas is very consistent and involves only one or two county forces; indeed, the model is straightforward. Gloucester constabulary supports the idea of a shared services model, an option that has not been costed or properly explored in this headlong rush toward amalgamation.

John Denham: With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, the pattern is incoherent in terms of its ability to deliver forces of the minimum size required. I agree with the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), who picked me up earlier on the use of the phrase optimum size. There is a minimum size of force necessary to deliver the range of services required for all types of policing, but it is clear that the optimum size will vary according to the geography and social nature of the area concerned.
	Federation is really a sticky, messy compromise, reached in order to avoid taking some difficult decisions. Asking police forces to co-operate on what will inevitably be an ad hoc, investigation by investigation, crisis by crisis basis will never be as effective as establishing forces that are sufficiently large to deliver, most of the time, the necessary services to the local population.
	The Liberal Democrats previously argued very strongly that all policing should be local, with a national force to deal with everything from level 2 crime upward. That does not make any sense either. Such a national force would have to be huge to deliver serious work against level 2 crime at local level. We need forces that are big enoughas my own Hampshire and Isle of Wight county force isto deliver the required range of services. Operation Phoenix, a co-ordinated drugs raid carried out in Southampton a few months ago, involved well in excess of 600 officers. In a smaller force, such an operation might have used up 60 per cent. of all available officers in the entire area. Generally speaking, such operations are sustainable in larger forces, but not in smaller ones.
	I recognise that county forces such as Hampshire are already of sufficient size to provide the required level of service. Changes to the Hampshire force may be necessarywe will have to wait and seenot for its own needs, but to ensure that all forces can deliver the required services; I hope not, but I am open to examining the conclusions of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. But forces that are not big enough to deliver on combating everything from antisocial behaviour to the most serious crime will be letting down not just their own constituents, but people across England and Wales as a whole.
	I conclude by making a few points to my Front-Bench team about their handling of this matter from here on. First, they are right to push the case for change, and it would be a mistake to retreat into the short-termism of the federal option. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced what the Government are doing from the top down to secure the development of basic command unit neighbourhood policing, but there must also be some bottom-up guarantees as to how that will be delivered.
	The idea of elected police commissioners is silly and dangerous. The last things that we want are the politicisation of the police and direct elections. However, as BCUs fit with local authorities, we need to ensure that there is a democratic route to action. The public need to know that the people whom they elect in their normal local elections have the power to hold the police to account for the quality of service at a local level.
	Secondly, the Government need not move to forces that are too big. I was challenged on that point earlier by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. Forces should be big enough to offer the optimum range of services, but there should be no artificial drive for forces that are too big.
	I have made my final point before, and it concerns a matter about which I agree with other hon. Members. It is that there is no need to be dogmatic about regional boundaries if the arguments about localism or crime patterns outweigh the case for fitting with regional boundaries.

Michael Ancram: I rise to speak on behalf of my local police force in Wiltshire. In doing so, I know that I am also speaking for other Conservative Members with constituencies in the area, my hon. Friends the Members for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), who is in his place behind me, for Salisbury (Robert Key) and for Westbury (Dr. Murrison).
	I want to speak about my local force as it is one of the smallest in the country. The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) spoke about a force's optimum size, but then corrected that to its minimum size. My point is that size does not matter, but delivery does. The Wiltshire force may be small, but its standards of performance are among the highest in the country. It achieves excellent levels of public service and satisfaction, as is shown in the baseline and police performance accountability framework assessments. The force has invested appropriately and prudently, in line with the professional threat assessments, and it has been able to meet demands in respect of major crime, firearms, public order andas I know from my own pastvery important person protection and air support. The force is small but it is effective.
	I do not claim that the Wiltshire force is perfect. No force in the country is, but the merger proposals would throw the baby out with the bathwater and that is the wrong way to go.

James Gray: As my right hon. and learned Friend says, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The Wiltshire force was founded by Sir Robert Peel in 1832. Since then, no murder has remained unsolved. Its detection and safety rates are among the best in England. It is an excellent police force, so why on earth is it being done away with?

Michael Ancram: My hon. Friend makes my point for me very effectively. No Conservative Member is suggesting that change is unnecessary or that all police forces work as well as they can. We are talking about what needs to be done, and as I listened to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, I found that I agreed with almost everything that he said. The same is true for the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis).
	The matter can be dealt with in ways other than merger, such as the co-operative arrangements that my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary set out. We need the flexibility to develop structures that best serve the needs of local communities. Those needs will differ between communities and areas. Certain overheads can be shared, and joint operations can be more efficient than those undertaken by individual forces.
	I have also looked at the federal model and I am surprised at how that is dismissed by the Government. I have spoken to the Wiltshire police authority about it and was told that the federal approach is less disruptive than mergers, and would be less likely to impact negatively on police performance. Moreover, it was suggested that a change to federalism would work with the grain of local communities and incur lower start-up and associated costs, and could be put in place quickly. If we were starting with a clean sheet of paper, of course, the federal model might not be the best design, but we must begin with the police forces that we have. In that context, the federal model is a good answer that the Home Secretary should study carefully.
	Neither of the two options that I have put forwardthe co-operative and the federal modelsappears to meet the criteria set by the Home Secretary. I listened carefully to what he said about Opposition accusations that the Government had a regionalisation agenda, and I confess that I am sceptical about his denials. Ever since the Government came into office, they have pursued a regional agenda in all sorts of ways. Suddenly, we find that police reform is moving towards a regional agenda and that is clearly a stalking horse for something that has been a major plank of this Government's policy since they were elected.

Jeremy Wright: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that is proved by the fact that the Government are inflexible when it comes to crossing regional boundaries? If they were not pursuing a regional agenda, would they not be more flexible in that regard?

Michael Ancram: That was very much the impression that I got from the Home Secretary's body language. I heard nothing to suggest that he has moved away from the regional agenda that he and the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety have been proclaiming on the radio over the past few months.
	The Government's proposals are bad news for Wiltshire. That is why they are opposed by our police authority, the chief constable and local people. They will undermine the important sense of local identity that is very much part of the force's success. They will make even more difficult the already unsatisfactory degree of accountability in our police service.
	I have spent many years in politics, and have seen many attempts to centralise, under Conservative as much as Labour Governments. The argument has always been that centralisation would reduce costs and improve services, but never once has that been the result. On every occasion, the push for centralisation has ended up costing more and providing a worse service. I do not believe that this will be any different.
	For four years in the 1980s, I was the Scottish Office Minister with responsibility for the police force. I saw the results of the regionalisation of local government. The policing of remoter areas of Scotland became much more difficult, and that worries me now, given that my constituency is so rural.
	I have a good local test. I live near Pewsey, a large village that some people call a small town. It has two resident policemen. What would happen if police forces in the south-west were merged? My answer is that we certainly would not have two policemen resident in that village.
	If the Government continue with these proposals, the result will be that policing will cost more than at present. As some hon. Members have said, the cost will be met, not by the Government, but by the local taxpayer, through the precept. We will end up in the extraordinary position of paying more and getting less. That is a very good reason to oppose what the Government are trying to do.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The Wiltshire police force is not broke. I have watched the Home Office over the past few years and I get the feeling that it is suffering from a form of ministerialitis. Ministers always want to be seen to be active and with purpose. That was evident last night, when they were defeated in the House, and it can be seen in many other policy proposals. It is right to be active with purpose if the purpose is correct, but I remind the Government that the charge of the Light Brigade was full of both purpose and action. If Ministers are not careful, they will be embarking on a similar road.
	Why is the Home Secretary so determined to plough ahead, even after what the Prime Minister told us today at Question Time? The key test for the Government is to produce the best standards of policing with the best local delivery at the best value. Their proposals fall short on all those counts. The Home Secretary should climb down off his obsessional hobbyhorse, listen to the people of this country, and think again.

Paul Truswell: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety is aware of the concerns in West Yorkshire. She recently met me, other MPs in the area and various other people, and an Adjournment debate was also held on the issue. However, I make no apology for taking this further opportunity to raise our concerns with her and her team.
	I understand that the Minister is caught between a rock and hard place. Obviously, the Government cannot ignore the advice from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary about protective services, or the fact that many smaller forces are unable to meet the challenges involved. However, the HMIC report focused narrowly on only one aspect of policing, albeit an important one, without considering how its conclusions might dovetail with issues of neighbourhood policing, community engagement, governance and cost. Those questions remain unresolved and continue to cause great concern.
	My right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety and her colleagues have yet to make a clear and cogent case for why West Yorkshire needs to be merged, especially given that the force meets the criteria of the HMIC report. It appears that its future is being determined not by what is best for our area but on the force's convenient proximity to three smaller forces, which I must add are three smaller and lower-achieving forces. With 5,700 police officers, West Yorkshire easily meets HMIC's minimum size of 4,000 for a strategic force. It demonstrated its capacity to deal with the challenges of terrorism during its recent work on the London bombings.
	A Yorkshire and Humberside amalgamated force would be artificially large, to use the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr.   Denham). Under the Home Office's criteria, the option of retaining a single force easily represents the best approach for West Yorkshire, which achieved a combined score of 809 for protective services and organisational impact. That compares with scores of 732 for the merger with North Yorkshire and 713 for a four-force regional merger.
	There are also significant differences in performance across the region. In the protective services assessment recently carried out by HMIC, West Yorkshire was the highest-scoring force in the region. Its combined score was 53, compared with scores of 42, 35 and 32 for South Yorkshire, Humberside and North Yorkshire respectively. There is therefore an understandable fear that there would be a levelling down of services, especially in the early years, rather than West Yorkshire's maintaining its present standards.
	Some collaborative and lead force arrangements with neighbouring forces already operate effectively. I appreciate that HMIC has concluded that such arrangements are not the way forward, but West Yorkshire contends that the perceived shortcomings of such arrangements could be overcome if they were properly structured and formalised, with clear lines of responsibility and accountability. It surely is not logical to dismiss the idea of a more structured federal approach simply on the basis of a critique of existing informal collaborations. Such an approach would provide protective services without incurring the huge costs and the disruption associated with amalgamation. It would also allow West Yorkshire to retain its identity, and to maintain the great progress it has made on local policing priorities and reduction of crime.
	It is difficult to get one's head around what a regional force covering the whole of Yorkshire and Humberside would look like, as policing has never been delivered on such a large organisational scale outside London. Thanks to the record number of police officers under this Government, West Yorkshire has made enormous strides in reducing crime. My own division, Pudsey and Weetwood, has probably made the lion's share of the contribution towards that achievement. The fear is that creation of a huge regional force will inevitably have a downwards knock-on effect, increasing basic command unit size. The costs associated with merger have been calculated at something like 50 million in West Yorkshire, although a great many figures have been bandied about globally and for individual forces.
	The other problem with a major structural change is that people have to relate not only to their local BCU but to the area in which it operates, simply because many important decisions taken at a strategic level have a direct impact on what BCUs and their commanders can deliver.
	Without financial safeguards, the effect of a merger on Yorkshire and Humberside would be to equalise Government funding in the new police region, and the police precept paid by residents. Under a crude equalisation without any smoothing, which would be expensive in itself, both amalgamation options would raise the precept in West Yorkshire by 20 per cent. That is clearly grossly unfair to my constituents and the other people in the area.
	There are other organisational considerations, which time does not allow me to go into in detail. Policing boundaries in West Yorkshire are coterminous with crime and disorder reduction partnerships and other community safety organisations. Each district council has representation on the police authority. The number of councillor members per district means that they are able to engage in conducting their police authority responsibilities as well as the original purposes for which their electors elected them. That simply would not be possible under either amalgamation proposal.
	I hope that the Minister will see from what I have been able to impart in digested form, from the Adjournment debate, and from the discussions and meetings that we have had and no doubt will have in future, why we in West Yorkshire are opposed to an enforced merger. I should like a commitment that she and her colleagues will genuinely look at the case being made by West Yorkshire to retain its present boundaries and operation.

George Young: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell), who, in a thoughtful speech, challenged the thinking behind the merger of his force into a much larger regional authority. The arguments that he deployed will have struck a chord with many hon. Members.
	It is also a pleasure to welcome back to the Back Benches my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) after some 14 years on the Front Bench. The loss to the Front Bench is counterbalanced by the gain for the Back Benches.
	I want to make two points, one general and one local. The general point is that public service reform, wherever it comes, is not cost-free. The Prime Minister has talked about the scars on his back, and reform requires the investment of political capital and financial capital. It means taking on established interests and short-term turbulence. It means the diversion of energy from the delivery of front-line services, and it is expensive in set-up costs, relocation, harmonising systems and working practices. It is also destabilising for those involved, many of whom have to bid for their own jobs and then, if successful, move.
	That is not a killer argument against reform, but it is an argument for embarking on reform only after due consideration and proper consultation, and after, where possible, building political consensus behind it, having not only convinced a suspicious public that they will benefit, but convinced oneself as the instigator that it is worth the candle. It also means looking across government to phase in a particular reform along with others. It means dealing first with those with the greatest need and the greatest public support, while putting the others in the in-tray for further reflection.
	The case against the Government is not that it is not possible to construct a case for police amalgamation. One can. The case against them is that their argument simply is not strong enough, as currently proposed, to include amalgamation in their programme. With health and education, there is consensus that investment of extra money needs to be accompanied by structural reform, and there is an appetite for reform of those public services. The pitch has been rolled, not least by Conservative Members as well as Labour ones.
	That is simply not the case with the police forces. There are ways to improve them, and I shall say a word about them in a moment. But they are not along the lines suggested by the Government. My first point, then, is that what the Government propose is a strategic political mistake, as well as wrong for the service under discussion.
	My second point concerns my county, Hampshire. Many of the county's Members of Parliament met the police authority last week, and we listened to what it had to say. The authority put forward a sensible case for leaving Hampshirea large well-run forcealone. Its size is above the minimum standards for grouping proposed by the Government. The total staff is more than 6,000 and likely to rise to more than 7,000 by 2007.
	Hampshire is very different from Thames Valley, with which the Home Office plans an arranged marriage for us. We have a long coastline, unlike Thames Valley. We have a large number of military establishments, unlike Thames Valley. We also have some major ports. But cruciallyto pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Pudseywe are a high-performing force, ranked either third or fifth out of 43 forces, depending on which performance table one uses, compared with Thames Valley which is, unfortunately, 34th.
	The cost of merging with Thames Valley would be 27.1 million, but it would cost nothing to remain as a stand-alone authority. The judgment of the police authority is that protective services may be diluted across the areas of major crime and serious organised crime, causing a decrease in performance or a requirement for extra funding. The Hampshire precept could be increased by 6 per cent., or 10 million per annum. How does that sit with the imperative of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to keep a cap on the local council tax?
	Additional front-end funding would also be required to facilitate the reconfiguration and change management processes. As if that were not enough, the assessment of a merger between the two authorities showed that the ongoing increased costs from year three would be 12.2 million, compared with savings of some 8 million. Any local MP, confronted with such evidence from his police authority on a service as sensitive as law and order, has to stand up and ask the Government where they are going. It is also clear that the policing methodologies in these two forces are different, and the work needed to evolve a coherent strategy across such a diverse area would be complex and protracted.
	I spent 30 days on the police parliamentary schemeall credit to Neil Thorne for pioneering itand saw the workings of the Hampshire constabulary from the inside. We have higher standards. We reject those who would be accepted by other forces, and if officers switch to Hampshire they have to be retrained to our standards. We will inevitably be confronted with a dilution of the high standards that we enjoy and pay for.
	The administrative centre is currently in Winchester, which is the centre of the county, but the likely location of a merged service is Kidlington, some way away. There is legitimate staff concern about travelling time and the remoteness of management. Hampshire is a good force, and I saw that at first hand when I patrolled the streets of Southampton a few months ago. Of course it could be even better, but what frustrates officers includes form-filling, frustration with the Crown Prosecution Service and the magistracy, the constraints on how they do their job, and out-of-date buildings. Our energy should be spent freeing them up to use their skills, not on trying to reorganise them.
	On this issue I agree with the Prime Minister, who said at Prime Minister's questions last week that there is an argument for a federated approach for certain services. Hampshire already does that, being one of the greatest exporters of services to other forces in the country. We can do that without amalgamation.
	On Tuesday last week the Home Office sent two independent consultants to meet the authority's strategic forces. The consultants said that Hampshire's stand-alone case was better than any other authority's and that we had made a strong case for staying as we are. The chief constable's professional advice is that the stand-alone option guarantees the best level of service to our communities at minimum cost. I agree with my chief constable, and I hope that the Minister will too.

Adrian Bailey: I listened with some amazement to the comments by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) about neighbourhood policing. As a councillor in an inner-city authority for most of the time that his Government were in power, I had to cope with the reduction in police on the streets, rising crime levels and the total inability to find mechanisms by which the local people could engage with their police force to ensure that their local priorities prevailed. That has changed. I do not claim that there are no longer any problems, but since this Government came to power we have seen a coherent attempt to introduce neighbourhood policing that is beginning to have an impact locally.
	I also recall the Opposition's position on the introduction of community support officers and other valuable and valued parts of the local policing scene, so I wonder what they can bring to this debate on neighbourhood policing. I caution the Minister that while we all want to see a consensual approach, priority should be given to the views of those who have actually implemented neighbourhood policing, rather than of those who singularly failed to do so when they had the opportunity.
	My second point concerns the O'Connor report

Jeremy Wright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Adrian Bailey: No, because I have only a short time and I want other people to be able to participate in the debate.
	I accept that some people will have views contrary to the thrust of the report, but the gestation of the report goes back to 1993, under the Conservatives. It is clear that the overwhelming balance of professional police opinion supports the O'Connor report's conclusions. I rather regret the attempt by the University of Warwick to rubbish the statistical basis and the credibility of that report. It has a good pedigree and I shall make my judgment on the balance of professional police opinion, rather than on the opinion of university professors in Warwick.
	My third point is about the arguments on process. I was in local government for a long time and I know that public services will always object to a process when they disagree with the intention behind it or the outcome is likely to involve hard decisions that nobody wants to face. The last police reorganisation took between 1960 and 1974almost 15 years. We cannot afford to reproduce that process. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to ignore those complaining about the process and get on with it. The O'Connor report reveals that 94 per cent. of gangs are not targeted every year by our police. Those criminal gangs will be rubbing their hands in glee with every year's delay in the implementation of the proposals.
	The proposals have to be judged against three criteria. The first is their impact on neighbourhood policing and accountability. The second is their impact on level 2 crime and the third is affordability. On the first, people in local communities relate to their local police at their local station, not to their police authority. Local people want mechanisms by which they can communicate their views and priorities to the local police command unit, so that policing habits in the area reflect those priorities. That is being done under neighbourhood policing and I am glad to say that it will be implemented in my area from April.
	The idea that there is no connection between neighbourhood policing and level 2 policing must be dispelled. It is essential to have more effective targeting of criminal gangs if we are to reduce the problems in local communities. It is those criminal gangs that are not targeted and put behind bars that feed in the drugs that cause so many problems in local communities. The one complaint I get, even in a large, well organised and well resourced police authority like the West Midlands, is that all too often local bobbies are taken away to deal with major crimes in other areas. If we can set up larger structures that minimise such disruption of local policing, it will be of benefit. The proposals will complement neighbourhood policing, not destroy it.
	The arguments for more strategic forces with specialised units were well made in the report, but there are issues of affordability. Economies of scale have a certain logic but I have seen other reorganisations in local government and public services and, as we all know, translating the theory into reality can create difficulties. The Government need to ensure that the savings that accrue are ploughed back into front-line policing.
	My fear is that, as in all restructuring, the new structures will tend to reflect the priorities of the professionals involved rather than the wishes of the community, so I urge the Minister to ensure that the economies that accrue reflect the priorities of the community, not of the professionals. In terms of affordability and economy, the federal structure suggested by the main Opposition would be a nightmare. There would be an extra layer of bureaucracy, blurred lines of accountability and no savings. We would have the worst of all worlds.
	I urge the Minister to go ahead with the reforms, taking account of the strictures, but to make sure that they work.

Roger Gale: The Home Secretary made much of neighbourhood policing in his opening remarks. Neighbourhood policing is not the community police officer, not the police support officer, not the bobby on the beatthe romantic vision. It is all those people, working with the milkman, the postman, the professionals, such as doctors, lawyers and nurses, the greengrocer, the butcher and the baker. They are the eyes and ears of the community by day and by night, waking and sleeping. It is only by harnessing all those energies that the communitythe neighbourhoodstands a chance of beating the antisocial behaviour, vandalism and drunken violence that beset every neighbourhood in the country.
	The neighbourhood policing initiative is vital; it is the cornerstone in the fight against crime as most people experience it in their everyday life. The Home Secretary said that his proposals would not damage that project. Well, a week ago, the all-party group on policing was addressed by Jerry Kirkby, the neighbourhood policing programme director for the Association of Chief Police Officers, and by Mark Burns-Williamson, the lead member on neighbourhood policing with the Association of Police Authorities. Both were absolutely clear in their view that if the time, money and energy of the police forces of the UK were diverted into doctrinaire reorganisation, mergers and amalgamations, neighbourhood policing would go out of the window, because the resources will not be there.
	The Home Secretary has yet to explain where the 600 million will come from and how it will not be a burden on the money currently paid for the neighbourhood policing programme and other initiatives. If the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), challenges that figure of 600 million, perhaps during the winding-up speech, either he or the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety will put a figure on the proposals, because to date there has been none. The bottom line is that the Government proposals will undermine the one police initiative that theyor to be more exact, the policehave introduced that is actually beginning to work.
	The Home Secretary prayed in aid the current president of ACPO, Sir Chris Fox. He received his knighthood in the new year's honours list, so one assumes that he is probably fairly well-known to the Home Secretary. Ministers on the Treasury Bench need to understand that Chris Fox has said that although he believes in bigger police forces, he does so only if the mergers are fully funded by central Government and if sufficient time, energy and thought go into the process. At present, there is no indication of any such funding or that time and thought have gone into the process. In those circumstances, I think we can take it that it is unlikely that even Sir Chris Fox will support what is suggested.
	Mike Fuller, the chief constable of Kent, my county, is one of the country's best senior police officers. He and Ann Barnes, the chairman of the Kent police authority, are as one in their opposition to Kent being merged with Sussex, Surrey or any other grouping of forces, in the interests of regional or any other form of government. We have already seen the ambulance and fire services go. School reforms will take governance away from schools, and the health authority is going regional. It is clear that the proposals are a regional initiative. The chief constable of Kent has made it plain that he believes that the process, as determined by the Home Secretary, will damage policing in Kent.
	We do not support what Ministers believe to be federation. We need to be extremely careful when using that word. When we say federation we are talking about co-operation, not merger by the back door, so let that not be a Trojan horse. It is fine for police forces to co-operate; in many instances, in emergencies, they already do so. There is scope for more of that co-operation, but there is no scope for the merger of strategic forces such as Kent, with its seaports and airportsthe front line to Europewith any other force.
	Finally, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am a special constable with the British Transport police, so you would expect me to mention that service. The BTP is not a Home Office force, but it is subject to a parallel review undertaken by the Home Secretary. There are suggestions that all or part of it may be merged with one or more of the Home Office forces. That would be a disaster. The BTP is a national police force. It is already strategic; it is free-standing and it works. Of course, there is room for improvement but it ain't broke; please don't try to fix it.

Patrick McFadden: The debate confronts us with a twin challenge: to tackle level 2 crime, as it has been described, while not  merely not damaging but improving local neighbourhood policing.
	Closing the Gap made several observations about level 2 crime. It noted:
	Only 13 out of 43 forces have fully resourced specialist murder units.
	Less than 6 per cent. of over 1500 big organised crime gangs are targeted by police in the course of a year
	and that
	some forces' ability to deal with terrorist or domestic extremist incidents would be strained within a matter of hours.
	Some Members say, If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I am saying not that the system is broke, but that the report indicated serious problems that the Government have to address.
	The challenge for Ministers is to propose a configuration of forces that meets the gap and tackles serious and organised crimes such as drug trafficking, terrorism and murder without damaging local policing. Those types of serious crime move across county boundaries, but there are also recognised crime marketsthe phrase used by the Home Secretarywhich may inform the configuration of forces.
	The proposed merger in the west midlands is supported by three of the four forces but, as was pointed out earlier, not by West Mercia. A couple of important questions are posed about what such a merger might mean. Opponents say that it will harm local policing. That is a serious charge, because if it harms local policing it should not be pursued. Neither the public nor police forces should be forced to choose between tackling serious crime and tackling local neighbourhood crime. The public expect the police to be able to do both. Week in, week out in our constituencies we hear about antisocial behaviour, graffiti and under-age drinking. There might be some merit in the arguments of those who oppose mergers if this was the Government's only proposal on policing, but it is not.
	With the basic command unit structure and, crucially, with the enormous expansion in police community support officersI understand that the new total will be 24,000there will be significant expansion in local community policing. In addition, the Government have funded additional police officers in recent years. We do not simply have a proposal to merge forces; we have also placed huge additional emphasis on developing neighbourhood policing, as the Home Secretary said in his opening speech, with individual contacts made much easier between officers and their local communities.
	Of course, there is the question of costs. I accept that there will be start-up costs, as in any proposed merger or reorganisation, but that is not the end of the picture. Certainly, the West Midlands police authority expects that significant savings will be made over about 10 years. However, I would ask the Minister to reflect on the police precept, which varies in different parts of the country and in different parts of the west midlands. I believe that the public will accept the argument that we need to reconfigure forces to tackle serious crime, but that Ministers must be very wary about imposing additional costs on local people to pay for the change.
	These proposals have merit and can go forward. I do not believe that the current situation can be defended in all its forms, because we sometimes force the police to make a choice: when a serious incident occurs, community policing can suffer because officers are pulled away from the community to deal with it. With the twin emphasis on tackling level 2 crime and on neighbourhood policing, we can deal with that problem and move to a form of policing that not only tackles the serious 21st-century crime that the country faces, but gives people the neighbourhood and community policing that they want.

Simon Burns: May I begin by apologising to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the Minister who will respond to the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), because, unfortunately, for the first time in 19 years, I will not be able to be present to hear the winding-up speeches in a debate in which I have taken part? I apologise profusely for that.
	I pay tribute to the fantastic work done by police officers and their back-up staff in the Essex constabulary on behalf of the people of Essex. We are extremely fortunate in having a dedicated, hard-working group of men and women who work day in, day out, often in thankless circumstances, to police our streets and countryside and to provide a service to the people of the county that I represent. However, we in the county have grave misgivings about the proposals, which are almost being forced on us against our wishes.
	The Prime Minister speaks about the Government listening to the people. We do not get the impression of any sincerity in that statement, given the Home Secretary's comments whenever the subject is discussed. We must take into account the fact that, over the past 20 years or so, policing has changed radically, as have the public's expectations of what they want and expect from their police forces. Sadly, in this day and age, there is a need for more intelligence gathering, whether in respect of terrorism or organised crime. Increasingly, at the very local level, people are demanding that the police take action against vandals, graffiti and other antisocial behaviour.
	We make other demands on our police, whether because of increasing vehicle crime or crimes against homes and property, and we expect them to respond. The police have a very difficult task to carry out, and we politicians make it more difficult if we distract them with unwanted, unnecessary and unjustified plans to modernise them, by reforming them in ways that they do not want to be modernised or reformed.
	Such things are crucial because policing in this country, whether we like it or not, must be done by consentthe consent of the peopleand to gain the support of local communities there must be an affinity and relationship between the police and the public whom they serve. I fear that one of the dangers that we face with the reorganisation is that the Government seem hellbent on the philosophy that big is better, but that divorces local people's affinity from the police force that should serve their needs.
	In Essex, we were originally told by the Home Secretary that he would not accept a stand-alone Essex police force option: it had to be a merger, whether an arranged marriage with the Norfolk and Suffolk forces, or with the forces to the west of the county in Hertfordshire or the other surrounding counties. Essex police force is large, like the county of Essex, which is one of the largest counties, geographically, and in terms of population, with just over 1.5 million people.
	We have a bigger population than the already-merged police force of Devon and Cornwall. We also have special features. Of particular relevance in this age of heightened terrorism, we have the third London airport at Stansted. We have a port at Harwich and one of the longest coastlines, where the police constantly try to minimise and prevent illegal immigration. We also have urban areas, mixed with significant rural areas, whose policing needs differ radically from those of urban areas.
	We are being told that we must join forces with another police forcepossibly twothus creating a huge, super-police force that would have no affinity with the local community. The financial impact on Essex council tax payers would be significant, and there would be even greater conflicting policing needs between those of the rural community and the demands of an urban society. That circle cannot be squared by putting us with other counties.
	If the Prime Minister is sincere in saying that he and the Government will listen to the people, let them listen and let them listen closelyif the Minister would be kind enough to stop listening to his Parliamentary Private Secretary. He is not listening; he did not even hear me say that, so I hope that he will read Hansard tomorrow and get the message that way. If the Minister is prepared to listen to the arguments, he will find a consensus in Essex against any proposal other than one that allows Essex police to continue as a stand-alone force.
	The consensus goes from the chief constable, who is a fairly crucial element in the equation, to the police authority and to 15 of the 17 Members of Parliament who represent the area. Only 15 of them have voiced an opinion because the hon. Members for Harlow (Bill Rammell) and for Basildon (Angela E. Smith) are Ministers, and whatever they may think personally in wanting to represent their constituents' interests, they are bound by collective ministerial responsibility, so they cannot voice an opinion. Among the 15 Members of Parliament who are united, there is a Labour Memberthe hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who is the only Labour Member for the county, other than the Ministersand a Liberal Democrat, the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell).
	Essex county council is root and branch against the proposals. Most of the borough and district councils in the country are against them, as are the vast majority of members of the public in the county who have voiced an opinion on the subject. So the Minister and the Prime Minister should not pay lip service and use the platitude that they will listen to the argumentsthey should act on them. For once, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), instead of driving something forward and pressing for regionalised government, which underlies many of the Government's reforms, they should listen to the people and leave Essex alone to get on with the job of fighting crime without being distracted by other measures.

Diana Johnson: I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a speech because I sat through the debate on police restructuring before Christmas and noted that not one Yorkshire Member spoke. I was thus pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) made a speech earlier, although my comments will be slightly different from his. I want to talk about the Humberside police force in the context of what has happened over the past eight or nine yearssince we have had a Labour Government. All hon. Members know that crime and community safety are key issues for our constituents, so I am proud of the Labour Government's record of putting them right at the top of the agenda.

Graham Stuart: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Diana Johnson: I am going to carry on and make some progress, if I may.
	We have already heard about the additional 14,000 police officers, the introduction of police community support officers and the extension of CCTV in major towns and cities. I support the neighbourhood policing initiative, and we know that crime rates are going down in general, so obviously we should welcome that. We must also realise that steps have been taken to try to cut back on the bureaucracy with which the police must deal. There are now fewer forms for our officers to fill in. There are Crown Prosecution Service lawyers in police stations, which helps to ensure that charges are dealt with quickly, which means that cases can go to court far more rapidly than before.

Anne Milton: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Diana Johnson: I am going to carry on.
	If we consider policing in 2006, we are all aware that there are local issues and more strategic national issues that we must address. We have already examined the jobs that we ask some of our police officers to do to find out whether they could be civilianised. We have considered establishing non-emergency telephone numbers so that the public can access the police more quickly than they can by dialling 999, to ask them to address problems that need not be dealt with immediately. I have already mentioned the police CSOs, and Hull has excellent community wardens who are about to be introduced throughout the whole of the city from April.
	Against that background, I read Closing the Gap, the report of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, with an open mind. I also drew on my experience as a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority in London. It is worth pointing out that the authority covers 32 London boroughs with basic command units that feed into the commissioner. The fact that there is such a large force does not mean that there cannot be effective management.
	The Humberside police force has just over 2,275 officers, just over 1,200 staff, 354 special officers and only 22 police community support officers. Many hon. Members will know that we have had a chequered past in Humberside. We were involved with the Soham inquiry and the Bichard report. Our previous chief constable had a bit of a spat with a Home Secretary a short while ago, and we were the last police force in the country to get police CSOs. Our new chief constable realised that that was a mistake, so we are now well on the way to getting many more CSOs to serve our communities.
	The options available to Humberside are either joining South Yorkshire police to form a force of about 5,500 officers, or forming part of a much larger regional force for Yorkshire with 12,000 officers. The chair of the police authority and the chief constable wrote to the Home Secretary on 16 December to set out their view that they would prefer to go for a voluntary merger, and I shall briefly run through the chief reasons why I support that.
	I was heartened to hear what the Home Secretary said about neighbourhood policing being at the heart of the policing agenda. The basic command unit will stay. It will be where most people recognise itthe local police station for their area. People in Hull talk not about the Humberside police force, but about local bobbies on the   beat and the local Hull police. That would not change under a regional structure. In addition to community wardens and special constables, Hull has the excellent HANWAGthe Humberside association of neighbourhood watch groups. The groups play a key role in community safety in our area and they would all remain local.
	A regional force would allow specialisations to develop. I was struck by an earlier comment about the fact that officers might not want to move to a different area or could think that larger forces would not give them the opportunities to develop their career. That is not the case for the Humberside police officers to whom I have spoken because they would relish the opportunities that would be available in a regional Yorkshire force.

Jeremy Wright: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Diana Johnson: No, I am going to carry on.
	The Humberside police force does not have sufficient officers to deal with the major incidents and level 2 crime with which it is sometimes called on to address. A regional force would be better able to deal with cross-regional crime, especially crime that moves up and down the M62.
	Operation Sapphire, which is run by the Metropolitan police, has the resources and staff that it needs because it can call on the resources of all 32 London boroughs. It creates havens for people who have been the victims of sexual assault. The Humberside police force has considered creating such a structure in its area, but it does not have the resources or staff to do so. If we had a regional force, we might well be able to set up structures such as Operation Sapphire, which would be of great service to people in Yorkshire.
	On counter-terrorism, although Hull has one of the country's major ports, I do not think that Humberside's existing number of officers can deal with some of the possible threats to the Humber estuary. We must also consider the duplication of services because great savings could be made by addressing the 43 human resources and payroll departments. All in all, I support a regional force for Yorkshire.
	When my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety makes her winding-up speech, will she address the problems with the precept because they are of great concern to many of my constituents? Will she ensure that people on our police authorities will be geographically accountable if we move towards a larger regional force? We should try to encourage a more diverse group of people to become involved in the accountability process. Young people are more likely to be the victims of crime than anyone else, so we should try to get them involved. We do not have to rush and do everything at once, so may we consider following a programme lasting for 18 months, two years, or three years so that we do not have to rush to change the badges on police officers' helmets and the signs on cars all at once? All in all, I support a regional force and think that Humberside would benefit greatly from a Yorkshire-wide force.

Graham Stuart: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Ms Johnson), who gave a speech that was suitable for an ambitious Labour Back Bencher. She said that she supported a regional force for the whole of Yorkshire. She was in the Chamber when the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) made his thoughtful speech, so I hope that sheand, indeed, Ministerslistened to it. He gave reasons that are grounded in the west Yorkshire community that he represents to explain why he does not believe that a regional force for the whole of Yorkshire would be appropriate.
	I represent a rural constituency in east Yorkshire that contains just four towns: Beverley; Hornsea, which is on the coast; Hedon, which is just to the east of Hull; and Withernsea, which is on the coast. Those communities are a long way from Pudsey and the problems that beset metropolitan areas with which a Yorkshire police force would want to deal. Our fears, which have been expressed already today, can be best summed up by saying that the rural needs of those communities would be left behind because of the draw of metropolitan areas. In fact, the chief constable of Humberside police recently said:
	Experience suggests that the larger metropolitan forces inevitably exert a strong draw on resources often to the detriment of surrounding areas.
	A full Yorkshire force would be too large, too remote and too distant from local people.
	Already, as many hon. Members have shown in this debate, there is fantastic frustration. Anyone who came with me to the Kirkfield estate in Withernsea and knocked on door after door would see that the Government are right to talk about law and order and the challenges of antisocial behaviour, but that they are not right to move structures that can be influenced even further away from those frustrated people. They elect people such as me as Members of Parliament and others as councillors to whom they talk about their No. 1 issuethe daily challenge of needles, antisocial behaviour and disorder in their community. They feel that, year after year, despite who they vote for and the rhetoric that they hear, nothing is done about that. They are suffering from cricked-neck policingthe police, senior and junior, have a leash around their necks that is being pulled by central Government. That is the nub of the problem.
	The Home Secretary was right to address the issue of accountability, but I wonder whether many Labour Members were convinced by what he said. I hope that the Minister, in summing up, will come back to the subject. When the Home Secretary said that there needed to be local accountability, he first mentioned national standards. One could laugh about that if it were not so symptomatic of this Government's approach. Their idea of local accountability is greater enforcement of national standards. The right hon. Gentleman then talked about roles for overview and scrutiny committees, but they have not worked in the health service. They have been unable to exert influence or to address the threat to local health services in communities such as Hornsea and Withernsea. The Home Secretary finished his piece on how he would drive local accountability with the point that there was always his intervention.
	Of the four key points that the Home Secretary made, two were about intervention at national level, which will not give any reassurance to people in Withernsea and Hornsea, or in villages such as Patrington, where I attended a meeting of the parish council last week specifically on the subject of policing. The local police inspector told us what we already knewthat very often there are just two officers serving the whole of the area. The prospect of unfunded, large-scale mergers, with costs possibly as high as 1 billion, dragging even more resources away from front-line policing and leaving rural communities even more denuded of cover is frightening to those who are already frustrated with the political process.

Jim Devine: Let me tell the hon. Gentleman about my experience in my constituency. He and I have similarly rural communities. The police put an ASBO on the whole village of Mid Calder because they had had problems with a small minority of youths for five or six weeks. There was much violence and aggression, and an attempted murder. Over the past six weeks, that community has had peaceful weekends. Perhaps the police in the hon. Gentleman's area should follow that lead.

Graham Stuart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We must use whatever tools are available, and I would not rule out the fact that ASBOs, whatever their chequered record, have a part to play.

John Hemming: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as the reorganisation will incur massive costs, the police will not be able to afford to issue ASBOs?

Graham Stuart: I completely agree; the difficulty is getting police to attend. In rural areas, proactive policing no longer occurs. The key question for us in this reorganisation is why would the creation of a huge Yorkshire force make accountability at local level more likely. The answer is that the likelihood is that it will not. There are issues about cost, and we have heard from the chairmen of the police authority that reorganisation will lead to fewer police on the beat.
	I am astonished at the experience of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North of talking to police officers in Hull. It differs greatly from my experience of meeting officers from the same force in my constituency. They have told me that they would be distinctly put out at the prospect of being used in a whole-Yorkshire force, which would remove them from the communities that they joined the police to represent and protect. Sending them elsewhere in Yorkshire without any safeguardsI would be interested to hear about that in the summing upcould have a big impact on recruitment. That point was well made earlier.
	The Government will be pleased that the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) came out with some support for the policy; it sounds as though he will be supporting the proposed legislation. However, there were elements of scepticism and doubt in his speech. Following so closely the political disaster of last night and so many ill-thought-through bits of legislation, I say on behalf of the rural communities that I represent that the Government have not answered our questions about accountability and empowering local people so that they feel that they can control the police force and that we can escape the curse of cricked-neck policing, under which police officers who are supposed to represent my constituents appear to be representatives of Whitehall and the Minister.

Helen Goodman: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart). If I may say so, he gave a speech suitable for an ambitious, young Opposition Back Bencher.
	I would like to take hon. Members on a brief tour of County Durham. It is a largely rural area with low levels of crime. In fact, I think that we have the lowest level of crime in the entire country. Of course, I get complaints from my constituents when there are serious problems and about antisocial behaviour, but in general the level of crime in the county is very low.
	Moreover, the police force is very efficient when compared with those facing similar issues. On all seven Home Office performance measurements, County Durham performs well. On reducing crime, investigating crime, promoting safety, providing assistance, citizen focus, resource use and local policing, the delivery is fair, good or excellent, and the direction is either stable or improving.
	The proposal in our part of the world is to bring together the police forces of Durham, Northumberland and Cleveland. One would therefore think, given that picture of a county force, that that circumstance would fit precisely the stereotype used by Conservative Members to criticise the Government's proposals. The area falls into all the categories that Conservative Members have said will be worst served by the Government's proposals. In fact, the local community is united in supporting the Government's proposals. The previous chief constable, Sir Paul Garvon, supports it, the new chief constable, John Stoddart, supports it, the county council supports it, the police authority supports it and all six Durham MPs support it.

Anne Milton: The hon. Lady is drawing out the fact that one size does not fit allwhat is good for her area is clearly not good for my area of Surrey. Does she therefore agree that an approach that allows areas to make their own decisions about how their communities are best served is the right way forward?

Helen Goodman: I was not agreeing with the hon. Lady. I was disagreeing with her. I was saying that the characteristics of areas that Conservative Members have said will be ill served by the Government's proposals are not considered a problem. The concerns that Conservative Members have expressed have not been raised in County Durham. Clearly she is so surprised by that that she does not believe what she is hearing, but it is indeed the case. One might, for example, be concerned that resources will be dragged into Cleveland, but again, that concern has not been raised.

Martin Horwood: The hon. Lady does not seem to appreciate the scale of the merged forces proposed. Her constituency is closer to mine than the far end of the Isles of Scilly with which Gloucestershire is supposed to form a south-west force. Would she be interested in a merger between Gloucestershire and County Durham to see whether we can shift resources between the two?

Helen Goodman: That is a patently ridiculous suggestion, as there is no proposal to unify County Durham with Gloucestershire. If the hon. Gentleman cares to look at a map, he will see that the proposed geographical region for the north-east is large, comprising Durham, Northumberland and Cleveland. County Durham is united in support of the Government's proposal because the force is too small to deal with the new challenges of organised crime and terrorism. We would be in a similar position to the Cambridgeshire force if we had to resolve an extremely difficult or complex problem.

John Hemming: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Helen Goodman: I feel that I have accepted enough interventions in a short speech.
	The view in County Durham is that, as long as we retain local neighbourhood policing and the basic command units, which are not threatened by the Government proposals, the change will be a positive step. A counter-proposal in the north-east would have unified south Durham and Cleveland and north Durham with Northumberland, but it would have cut across the coterminosity of other services, so we did not wish to accept it in County Durham. Opposition Members have criticised the Government for introducing proposals that would increase bureaucracy. That is patently ridiculous. The proposals will reduce bureaucracy, unlike their proposals, which would introduce a new layer of bureaucracy in the system. I therefore support the Government amendment.

Anne Milton: I was surprised that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) found the Conservative proposals patently ridiculous. In doing so, she attacks my local community, my local residents, my police authority and my local policemen, who all support the views that my hon. Friends and I have expressed.
	May I respond to a point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Ms Johnson)? I could hardly believe my ears when she said that police bureaucracy had gone down. In Surrey, an estimate earlier this year was that one third of police time was taken up with police paperwork, which has risen a great deal in the past few years. I fear that, yet again, the Government are trying to re-provide, reorganise and, in this case, restructure their way out of inherent problems in the public sector. In Surrey, restructuring is an attempt by the Government to solve chronic underfunding problems. If one talks to people in my Guildford constituency about restructuring, their eyes glaze over. I am sure that that is the case for many residents in other constituencies. All my constituents want to do is go about their business. They want to be free, both of crime and of the fear of crime. In Guildford town, Cranleigh and all the surrounding villages in my constituency, fear of crime is a significant and, at times, disabling issue for many local residents. They would therefore put crime and the fear of crime at the top of their list of priorities.
	Surrey is a low-crime area, so it is easy to dismiss such fears, but they are genuine even if they appear disproportionate in the light of the figures. They stop people going to the local shops after dark and prevent parents from allowing their children to walk to school. They stop people going into Guildford at night, because 4,000 to 5,000 kids from the local area go into town to drink in the bars and clubs. They stop people getting on with their lives, so they are socially disabling. Although the crime figures are low in Surrey, there are worrying trends, including an upward trend in violent crime, which gives considerable cause for concern. Villages are not immune to the problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) talked about rural crime, which is an increasing concern. Farmers have to go to significant lengths to secure their property, farm gates and vehicles.
	When my residents' eyes glaze over, it is because restructuring of the police is not their main concern. They want to know what the changes will do for them. Will they feel safer? Will crime and antisocial behaviour go down? Will the police be more accountable and will they be able to respond to their problems? My instinctive belief is that that any measure that makes Surrey police more distant from my local residents or which makes the police more distant from anyone is the wrong thing to do. The proximity of the police and their association with the local area are important. The Home Secretary talked about neighbourhood policing, which I applaud. However, my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) cited Jerry Kirkby, who piloted neighbourhood policing in Surrey and believes that the restructuring will knock neighbourhood policing on the head.

Tim Farron: Is the hon. Lady aware that Cumbria police authority is the only authority in Britain that has received an excellent charter mark for citizen focus? People throughout Cumbria and in my constituency of Westmorland and Lonsdale are concerned that, if decisions affecting our area are taken in Preston or Liverpool, that focus will be removed from our communities. I am sure that she will agree that the widening scope and centralisation of police decision making will have a negative effect on her own area and on citizen focus.

Anne Milton: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Local residents need to identify with their local police. If that association is taken away from the local community, particularly in areas where fear of crime is a major concern, the problem will be compounded, as people will know that the police are further away.
	In a letter written in January, the Association of Police Authorities made it clear, as the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety will know, that it had serious concerns about restructuring and was alarmed about the speed with which the Home Secretary was rushing the changes through. It wanted more time for the police and communities to be consulted. It was concerned about the costs of restructuring, which cannot be met from already overstretched police budgets. For Surrey, that is a serious issue. I am convinced the Government are restructuring their way out of huge problems of police underfunding.

William Cash: We in Staffordshire have grave concerns about centralisation if we were merged with the west midlands, because the problems in society are totally different. Does my hon. Friend accept that it would be a disaster for Staffordshire to be merged, for Treasury-driven reasons, with a body as big as the west midlands?

Anne Milton: I thank my hon. Friend. With reference to the comments of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, it is important to realise that every area is different. She painted an entirely different picture from the one that I will paint and the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has painted. We do not need a one-size-fits-all model.
	Surrey has the worst grant settlement of any force in the country. According to the police, the funding gap can be reduced only by reducing costs, which means decreasing services. Surrey police authority considers that restructuring will be not only expensive but disruptive, and of little overall benefit. Analysis by the police locally reveals that the real issue is not structure, but how the police resources are used and the removal of red tape, which constrains chief officers. Surrey has long been underfunded, creating, as the police authority recognises, an unreasonable council tax burden for Surrey's residents.
	A Surrey-Sussex merger, which is one of the options that Surrey police have considered, would cost 29 million. The police admit that although such a merger
	would increase resilience in providing Force level protective services, for example major crime investigation, strategic roads policing, counter terrorism capabilities and other services, the same level of resilience could be built into the Surrey Force at a similar cost but without the upheaval of a merger,
	and without the loss of focus. The police go on to say:
	To achieve full resilience (avoiding abstracting local police resources to deal with anything but the most critical events) would require an additional 26 million of funding per annum in Surrey alone.
	The police authority has not offered to merge with another police authority because it is deeply unhappy about the proposal. As Surrey police have said, merging Surrey and Sussex forces would bring two poorly funded forces together to create one larger poorly funded force.
	I shall conclude my remarks because other hon. Members wish to speak. Like many of my hon. Friends who represent Surrey constituencies, I remain deeply unhappy about the plans to restructure our Surrey force. My local residents' fears about their safety and about crime will not be dealt with by the proposals. I urge the Home Secretary and the Minister to say not just to Opposition Members, but to Surrey police authority, to Surrey police and to Surrey residents that the restructuring will not go ahead, and that there are better things to do with the 29 million that will be spent on the exercise.

David Gauke: I acknowledge that the O'Connor report identifies failings in the current system. It refers to organised crime as
	widespread, vibrant and growing,
	and says that
	very few forces meet the required standard.
	It also says that
	vulnerability was evident in relation to counter terrorism and domestic extremism, serious and organised crime and public order.
	It is understandable that the Government want to do something. One can be critical of a Government who have been in office for eight yearsnearly ninewhen that is the verdict of the report that they commissioned.
	The question is: what does the O'Connor report recommend, and is that the right course of action? The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) pointed out that the conclusions reached by the report are not quite as conclusive as the Government like to make out. If one looks at the analysis of the various parts of protective servicesthe initiative is being driven by protective servicesagain, things are not quite so clear-cut.
	Of the seven elements identified, the report found that capability in road policing was entirely independent of size. On civil contingency, the report acknowledges that
	every force outside the Met would require mutual aid very early into a multi-site chaotic event.
	On critical incidents, it states that forces, including smaller forces such as Dorset and Leicestershire, that have suffered a significant critical incident demonstrate a high degree of capability. I cite a local example at Buncefield in Hertfordshire, where the police handled an incident very successfully, with mutual aid. According to the report, forces that perceive themselves to be low risk tend to take a less structured approachin other words, forces that do not see much of a problem   do not prepare to the same degree. That is understandable.
	The O'Connor report also notes that not all forces   have profiled their communities to identify vulnerabilities. There is just a hint in that section that larger forces are slightly more politically correct. I do not want to over-egg that argument, but perhaps larger forces are doing more analysis of the make-up of their communities and as a result become slightly more politically correct and less focused on the matter in hand.
	Individual forces have developed expertise in particular aspects of public orderfor example, party conferences in Dorset and Huntington Life Sciences in Cambridge. There is also evidence that expertise is passed from force to force, which is perhaps an example of the federal approach working better. On public order, the O'Connor report says that there is a rough correlation between size and reactivity, but it also says that an establishment of 2,200 officers is the minimum size for preparedness, rather than 4,000 officersthe figure that the Government often quote.
	The O'Connor report identifies failures in the way in which all forces deal with major crime, and states that success is to some extent dependent on whether forces have dedicated major investigations teams. In a recent written reply, the Minister revealed that 13 forces have got major investigation teams. A force does not require 4,000 officers to have a major investigation team, because while there are only six forces of that size, 13 forces have major investigation teams, which once again suggests that the 4,000 limit is unnecessary.
	I acknowledge that serious organised crime is an issue. However, the O'Connor report says that we know very little about it and that insufficient analysis has taken place.
	One would have thought that the Government would take all sorts of steps on counter-terrorism, but in a recent written answer, the Minister said that the current regional and national counter-terrorism structures were appropriate. I do not have time to go into that matter in further detail, but the point had to be made.
	The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) has said that Hampshire have the necessary protective services, but it has 3,800 officers. Furthermore, if Hertfordshire police authority were to merge with Bedfordshire police authority, the new force would not meet the 4,000 mark, but its protective services capability would be greater than if Cambridgeshire were involved, too. I hope that the Government will consider such matters on a case-by-case basis and not stick rigidly to the 4,000 limit.

Mark Harper: I shall make one brief point and one substantial point. First, the Home Secretary has discussed accountability and the link between crime and disorder reduction partnerships and district councils. In my area, for example, the basic command units are the Forest of Dean and Gloucester, which cover a district council area and a city council area. Those areas are distinct and different, and it would not be satisfactory if they were served by a single BCU.
	Secondly, I want to discuss the alternative to mergers, which is collaboration between independent forces. As the Minister knows, the chief constable has provided examples of services that are currently shared in the south-west, where independent police forces are already co-operating on regional tasking and co-ordinating special branch intelligence and air support, which, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said, Gloucestershire has shared with Avon and Somerset since 1996. Indeed, a new regional arrangement has been implemented on the provision of helicopter pilots. The implementation of Airwave, procurement, drug-testing services and forensic physicians have also been shared among services, saving the region 1.4 million per annum. The success of joint procurement shows that the approach outlined in Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary's document What price policing? can work. Collaboration and sharing require commitment and belief, but they provide results without the up-front cost of amalgamation.
	There is another example of shared services between the emergency services in Gloucestershire. Since 2002 a joint police, fire and ambulance control room has operated from Quedgeley in the constituency of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda), who is sitting on the Front Bench now. The facility is one of three nationally, proves its worth every day, and is popular in the county.
	Shared services and the collaborative model offer the Government a way out. As has been said, mergers are popular and professionally supported in some areas, but where they are not popular, I urge the Minister to consider the collaborative model. The chief constables and the police authorities in Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and Dorset are working on a proposal to retain those forces' independence and have them make a great commitment to working together, which is a good alternative model. I urge the Minister to examine that alternative, and hope that she concludes that it is right for those three counties.

Nick Herbert: The Home Secretary began by suggesting, incredibly, that the majority of police authorities support his position, so it is worth reminding the Minister of the facts. By the 23 December deadline that the Home Secretary set, of the 41 police forces affected by the proposed restructuring, 14 refused to express a preferred option and another 14 stated that their preferred option was to stand alone. By my reckoning, that means that 28 out of the 41 police authorities68 per cent.have rejected the Home Secretary's proposals. Only seven police authorities signed up to the full regional mergers as proposed by the Home Office, and in every case at least one other authority in the region opposed the plans. It is fantasy politics to claim, as the Home Secretary did, that police authorities support what he is doing.
	The Home Secretary also prayed in aid the comments of several chief constables. However, for every chief constable who has publicly spoken out in favour of restructuring, others have opposed it. Opinion is divided. I could quote the chief constable of Dyfed-Powys, who said that the Government's plans were
	verging on a shambles
	and
	Alice Through the Looking Glass stuff.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) mentioned Gloucestershire. The chief constable of that force, who is also the head of finance and resourcing at the Association of Chief Police Officers, said:
	Restructuring will be a highly risky undertaking, financially, operationally and organisationally.
	The Home Secretary signally failed to deal with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) said about the cost of the proposals, which the Association of Police Authorities estimates to be 525 million and rising. The Government have so far offered only 125 million to defray those costsless than a quarter of the amountand we know that that is not new money. There is a 400 million shortfall. I have repeatedly asked the Minister to tell me how that shortfall is to be funded; perhaps she will tell me now. It is clear that local taxpayers are going to pick up the bill. That means that police precepts will rise by, we calculate, 21 per cent. to meet the 400 million gap. That is against the background of rising council tax and a police precept that has already doubled since the Government came to power.
	The last time that I raised this, the Minister said that she did not accept the APA's estimates. I have to tell her that we will be sceptical about the Government's figureswhen they finally get round to publishing themin the light of the National Audit Office's refusal yesterday to sign off the Home Office's books because it could not properly account for its 14 billion annual budget. I remind the Minister that in some parts of her region, the north-west, the 47 million cost of restructuring will result in council tax bills rising by as much as 32, while in the Home Secretary's region they will rise by as much as 30.
	At Prime Minister's questions, the Prime Minister has repeatedly expressed his support for the option of sharing services. Today the Home Secretary repeated his opposition to that solution. We might have known that that was the Home Secretary's position, because he has written to us all; we received the letter today. He has published a glossy leaflet about what he intends to do with the police. When he is asked how serious crime is going to be combated, he replies:
	Establishing larger forces with greater capacity to investigate serious crime.
	It is a done deal, is it not? No sooner had the Prime Minister made his comments in support of sharing services by police forces, than the Ministerwho is the Minister for respectgave a briefing to the lobby to say that that was not the case. I suggest that that was not very respectful to the Prime Minister.
	The Home Office appears to be in a state of confusion about what is happening. In a briefing from Home Office officials to members of local authorities earlier this month for a conference entitled the Innovation Forum, page 2 begins:
	This is not about mergers.
	If it is not about mergers, what is it about? Do the Government have a coherent view of whether they are willing to consider sharing services? The Association of Police Authorities has asked them to consider that. Perhaps we could have a straight answer to that question.
	When the Prime Minister was asked about amalgamations, he said:
	It is not a question of forcing them through.[Official Report, 25 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 1426.]
	Clearly, that is exactly what the Home Secretary plans to do, because amalgamations do not have the unanimous support of police authorities in any region of the country. If the Government are determined that amalgamations are the answer, they can only proceed by compulsion. They should stop pretending that some sort of voluntary arrangement is possible, because police authorities do not want it.
	The Government's reluctance to allow mergers across regional boundaries, which they confirmed again today, reveals their agenda. The Deputy Prime Minister's plans for regional government were defeated overwhelmingly in the first referendum in the north-east, but the Government are proceeding with regionalism by stealth. That happens with planning decisions, the replacement of local fire control rooms with regional centres, in the national health service and now with the police.
	I am sorry that Home Secretary is not here, because I wanted to emphasise to him that big is not always beautiful.

David Davis: The Minister who is here should approve of that sentiment.

Nick Herbert: Indeed.
	The Home Office's performance assessments show that three of the top-performing police forces have fewer than 4,000 officers. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said, size does not matter. Why are the Government so dismissive of the option of sharing services? Several points that Labour Members made were wrong. No additional bureaucracy will be created by forces sharing services, as shown by the fact that no primary or secondary legislation is required to achieve that.
	Agreements to share services would be legally binding, not ad hoc. Sharing services would enable police authorities to achieve the economies of scale inherent in a merger without the additional costs. Police forces could preserve their local identity and accountability, and implementation would be quicker and less disruptive. Existing arrangements show that the sharing solution is practical. That is apparent when one considers the midlands counter-terrorism support unit or the West Midlands central motorway patrol group, which operate across forces.
	Sharing services works well in other public servicesfor example, the Army, in which brigades undertake operational and support functions while the regimental structure is retained.
	The Government could have pursued a police reform agenda. Only one in four crimes are detected, and the Minister knows that detection rates have been falling. Police officers spend less than a fifth of their time on the beat. It takes three and a half hours for every arrest to be processed. The police reform agenda should cover modernising working practices, cutting paperwork and   making police properly accountable to local people.   Instead, the Government are obsessed with reorganisation. That often happens in their dealings with public services.
	Constant interference and change is good for only one group of peoplethe management consultants, who already charge a great deal of money, at the taxpayers' expense, as they advise on changes in the Government's constant public service reorganisations. For everyone else, the process is disruptive.
	Chief constables and police authorities should spend time on policing our streets. Instead they spend too much time, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) said, worrying about headquarters moves, how to merge IT systems, and their jobs.
	We made the Government a serious offer. We said that if they considered alternatives to amalgamation, costed the options properly and consulted local people, we would be constructive in reaching agreement on how to shape policing in the future. However, the Government are clearly blindly determined to press ahead. They have lost the support of police authorities and are losing that of increasing numbers of chief constables. They never had the support of local people and they will not say how the 500 million will be financed. They have no serious proposals to ensure local accountability of the police. They will not allow amalgamations to cross regional boundaries, but the proposed police force amalgamations will leave local taxpayers with a 400 million bill.
	Vast regional forces will take chief constables hundreds of miles from the local people whom they are meant to serve. Regional forces will weaken the link between police and their communities, and strengthen the Government's grip on the police. This is exactly the wrong way to strengthen the fight against crime, so we ask the Government, one more time, to think again.

Hazel Blears: I was about to say that we had had an excellent debate; I genuinely think we have. We have heard some really good contributions, and the tone of the debate, when it was opened by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), was very different from that of some debates that we have had. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was seeking consensus. He was trying to be constructive and to find a way forward. He agreed that there was a need to deal with protective services, and that services might be weak in some police forces. He also agreed that teams needed to acquire skills and expertise, and that there was a need for major incident teams. There appeared to be a huge degree of consensus between us, and I wondered what I would have to talk about.
	Then, however, we heard the speech of the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who, in the past 10 minutes, has managed to provoke me to the point at which we really can have a good and proper debate on these issues. It is important that we share some of the concerns, however, and I was also heartened by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who recognised that there were serious gaps in the police forces' ability to deal with some of the serious challenges of 21st century policing. That feeling has been echoed across the Chamber today, and I am grateful for that.
	As always in these debates, we can all recognise the problems, but we do not always agree on, or even recognise, the way to deal with them and the decisions involved in doing so. I have to say to Members on the Opposition Bencheswhere we sat for a very long time; far too long, in my viewthat it is easy to say what one is against, but it is far more difficult to say what one is for. We need to develop constructive proposals that will strengthen policing in this country.
	I want to put one fact clearly on record from the outset; this is not about a regionalisation agenda. It is not about changing structures or re-drawing the map of policing for the sake of it. Our proposals are about trying to ensure that our police service, which protects the people of this country, is fit for purpose and able to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour at a local level, to deal with volume crime and serious and organised crime involving drugs, money laundering and people trafficking, and to deal with international crime and the threat of terrorism.
	It is the Government's responsibility to grapple with those issues, no matter how difficult they are. We face difficult issues of accountability, governance, finance and responsivenessit is perfectly legitimate to raise those issuesbut at the end of the day, our top priority must be to ensure that the police service in the whole country, not just in one particular area, has the capacity, the capability and the resilience to deal with the pressures that we face.

James Gray: If this is not about regionalisation, why has the Home Office laid down that the police in my area of North Wiltshire on the M4 may not amalgamate with the Berkshire police, even if they want to, because they are in different Government regions? Why has the Home Office laid down that absolute stipulation about the regional boundary?

Hazel Blears: At the start of this process, we set out certain criteria that we thought would help police forces to draw up proposals to submit to us[Interruption.] Again, I say that it is the Government's responsibility to set a framework, and to establish the broad parameters. The alternative would be a free-for-all in which no one took responsibility or made the necessary decisions. We said that the criteria would include looking at Government office boundaries, although we did not say that that was an absolute given. We said that if there was a compelling case for crossing such a boundary, we would consider it. I hope that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) would accept that, in relation to a range of services, it is necessary to have relationships, coterminosity and people working together to ensure that we have the resilience to deal with all these issues.

David Davies: Will the Minister give way?

Hazel Blears: No, I have dealt with the issue.
	I also want to emphasise some of the facts that relate to our proceeding in this way. Although we have talked about structures, accountability and governance, which are important issues, I would not want us to neglect the real policing imperatives. Only 13 out of 43 forces have fully resourced specialist murder units. Fewer than 6 per cent. of the more than 1,500 big organised crime gangs are targeted by police in the course of a year. Only seven out of 43 forces deploy special branch, together with its neighbourhood policing teams, providing that essential community intelligence to enable us to prepare for and counter terrorism. Those are real, substantive policing issues, and that is the agenda at stake.
	I want to deal with some of the points made during the debate. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said that we shared some common ground. He is keen to sustain neighbourhood policing, as are all my right hon. and hon. Friends. But he should think carefully; unless there is some coming together, so that we have larger forces with capacity and resilience, we will not be able to sustain neighbourhood policing for the long term as we want to do. We need to consider the whole of the police force's business; otherwise, neighbourhood policing will sit on top of our current organisation, and it will be easy to strip out in years to come. I mean to make sure that that does not happen.
	I very much welcome the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr.   Denham). I particularly welcomed his analysis about federation leading to blurred lines of accountability and the possibility of even more costs and bureaucracy if we have to have an extra layer on top of our existing forces.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr.   Ancram) said that he could ascertain from the Home Secretary's body language that he was about regionalisation. I have never seen regionalised body language in my life. We have already agreed that big is not necessarily beautiful, and that size does not matter.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell), in a thoughtful contribution, set out his genuine concerns. I assure him that I will examine extremely carefully the case made in relation to West Yorkshire. I have met him and other colleagues, and I will continue to give that issue extremely close attention.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey), in an excellent contribution, also spoke about support for neighbourhood policing, and urged us to get on with taking action. It is important that we do not have an extended period of blight and uncertainty, which will provide an opportunity for morale to dip, and I do not want that to happen. When we make our decisions, there is a need to press on with our action.
	I welcome the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. McFadden), who knows the challenges involved in Closing the Gap to tackle serious crime. He thinks that the public should not have to choose between tackling local crime and serious crime, and he is absolutely right. The mission for the police service is now extremely wide. We therefore need an organisation that is fit for purpose, so that we can deploy our resources to tackle all the threats that face us.
	I welcome the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Ms Johnson), who brought her experience in London to the debate. As she said rightly, the community's relationship is with the BCU commander, and not necessarily with the larger force. That relationship will be key in making sure that local people have the ability to set priorities.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) gave us some tremendous support. I am delighted that, while her area has a high-performing force and low crime, she still recognises the sense of coming together, sharing resources and considering a collective framework.
	Several other Members have made contributions. I recognise the concerns about rural areas. As Members will know, I do not represent a rural area, but I am concerned that every part of the countryrural and urban, market town and inner cityshould have a neighbourhood policing team made up of police officers, community support officers, special constables and neighbourhood wardens that is not abstracted when there is a double or triple murder, a major demonstration, or, heaven forbid, another terrorist incident. At the moment, with small forces, the pressure to draw those officers away from the neighbourhood is intense, and that will get worse as serious crime is more of a threat. The way in which to sustain neighbourhood policing in rural as well as urban areas is to ensure that we have large enough forces to maintain that strategic capacity and resilience.
	We will of course consider the ideas that have been advanced about federation. I am not convinced that it can provide the solution that we seek, but we will certainly examine the cases that are put to us. However, I say this to Members who see federation as a magic bullet to deal with the problems that we face: it could produce blurred lines of accountability, a chief constable who was not responsible for all areas of crime, an extra layer of governance and another command team. It could cost each area 1 million if a separate command team had to deal with serious and organised crime.
	There is no simple solution. These are complex issues that require a complex response. We are determined, however, that the steps we take will improve policing in every part of the country, so that we can protect the people to whom we owe a responsibility. I hope that Members throughout the House will recognise that the responsibility of us all, not just Government, is to consider not only individual forces but how to secure the best possible system, which will serve us now and also in 15 and 20 years' time and will take account of the real challenges of 21st-century policing.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:
	The House divided: Ayes 235, Noes 311.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the excellent work of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) in clearly setting out the case for reform of the current structure of policing in England and Wales; thanks police forces and authorities for their hard work in responding to the HMIC findings; congratulates the Government on its commitment to delivering excellent policing at all levels, from vandalism to terrorism, through strategic police forces equipped with dedicated capacity at the neighbourhood level; and endorses the need for reform to move swiftly to minimise uncertainty and damage to morale within a service which has over the past eight years shown itself dedicated to continuous improvement in delivery of a truly locally responsive service.

Government's 10-year Transport Plan

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I also remind the House that there is a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Chris Grayling: I beg to move,
	That this House notes that 2006 marks the beginning of the second half of the decade covered by the Government's Ten Year Plan for Transport; further notes that a substantial proportion of the commitments and specific projects outlined in the document Transport 2010: The Ten Year Plan have subsequently been abandoned; further notes that overcrowding on roads and railways is getting worse; and expresses its concern that, at a time when record amounts of money are being spent on transport, so many of the schemes which could ease overcrowding have been dropped or delayed indefinitely by the Government.
	It is eight years and eight months since the Government came to power, and the Secretary of State for Transport has been in office for just under half that time. This year also marks the start of the second half of the Government's much-vaunted 10-year plan for transport. It is, therefore, an appropriate moment for the House to review progress to date towards the Government's declared goal of creating what the Deputy Prime Minister described as
	the integrated transport system this country needs and deserves. A system fit for the new millennium and of which we can be justly proud.
	There is no doubt that in those eight years we have seen frenetic activity in the Department for Transport. We had the much-vaunted 10-year plan. We saw a series of White Papers and debated a series of transport Acts. We have had numerous strategic plans from Government agencies. We have seen the creation of new bodies to give direction to our transport system, such as the Strategic Rail Authority, set up in a blaze of publicity and commended by the Secretary of State, who said when he took office that it had already brought coherence to long-term planning as well as a commitment to getting results. The new management was making a real difference, he said. Then, he went and scrapped it, two years later.
	We have had expensive multimodal studies setting out transport priorities all round the country. We have had a drive from the Department to improve the quality of local transport plans. We have had blue skies thinking from Lord Birt who wanted to build vast toll motorways across the country. Last week, it was the turn of the Government's science think-tank, Foresight, which set out its vision of transport for the future. Next, it will be the turn of Rod Eddington to set out how he thinks transport should look.
	We cannot knock the Government for all the activity, thinking and debating that has taken place in the Department in the past few years. But there is one small problem. Out there, in the real world, things have been getting worse for the travelling public and there is precious little on the way to make their lives better. The trains are getting more crowded and are still running late. Traffic jams are getting longer every year. In much of the country, buses are no longer a viable transport alternative. Nothing seems to be happening to sort the problems out.

Bob Spink: Does my hon. Friend agree that the drive for further development in the south-east, especially the 124,000 more houses in the Thames gateway area, will exacerbate the overcrowding of the roads and rail services in the area? Residents of Canvey Island need a new road and a new rail station much more than they need the thousands of new houses that will be forced on them by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

Chris Grayling: I agree. One cannot build hundreds of thousands of new houses without the infrastructure to support them. However, in those areas where development is planned by the ODPM, with a distinct lack of joined-up government, the Department for Transport does not have plans to support the developments with infrastructure improvements.

Sadiq Khan: The hon. Gentleman mentioned new organisations and bodies that have been set up over the past few years. Will he join me in congratulating Transport for London and the Mayor, who have been responsible for a 70,000 reduction in the number of vehicle journeys into London, thanks to the congestion charge, and a massive increase of 54 per cent. in bus usage in the past few years?

Chris Grayling: There is no doubt that some good work has been done on transport in London by the devolved administration, but the hon. Gentleman has to bear it in mind that it is easy to do good work when one has 1 billion extra to spend on it. Many parts of the country do not enjoy the financial support that London does; the level of service is rather less satisfactory than it is in many parts of London.

Andrew Murrison: The picture in London may be rosy, as the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) points out, but has my hon. Friend noted that the south-west public transport users forum is far less upbeat about train services in particular? It is a funny way to start a 10-year transport plan by considering shutting the London Waterloo to Bristol service, which stops in the towns in my constituency.

Chris Grayling: That is right. As my hon. Friend knows, in many parts of the country the reality for many people is that transport alternatives do not exist. It is true that London is reasonably well served by bus services, but those who take suburban rail services into central London suffer from increasingly overcrowded trains. The forecasts are for even more passengers on those trains in future, but no more trains are planned.

James McGovern: The hon. Gentleman mentions overcrowding on trains. Does he agree that given a 36 per cent. increase in rail passenger journeys since 1997in 2001, there were more than 1 billion passengers for the first time since 1961the Government are perhaps victims of their own success? That success story is a result of the sound investment policies of this Government, as opposed to the botched privatisation policies of the previous Conservative Government.

Chris Grayling: The Secretary of State tends to say that that is a consequence of economic growth rather than transport policies. I shall come back to the increase in rail usage, but if trains are overcrowded and likely to become more so, one naturally looks to Government for some ideas on how to ease the congestion and increase capacity. That is distinctly lacking.
	The hon. Gentleman is right: the number of people travelling by train has rocketed in the past few years. More passengers are carried on the railways than were carried on a much bigger network before the Beeching cuts. That is a matter of record. The Government's own figures show that the frequency of what, in the technical jargon, are called trains with passengers in excess of capacityor, to the layman, really, really full trainshas gone up and up. The problem is that the Government forecast a further increase in passengers on the railways over the next few years. The future finances of the railwaysthe detailed financing in the franchise documentsrequire a growth in passenger numbers over the next few years to meet the passenger targets.
	There are two problems, however. First, the official figures also show that there are no plans to increase the number of trains on our railways over the next seven to 10 years. The rail regulator says that between 2007 and 2014 there will be no growth at all. The maths is simple: if there are no extra trains but 30 to 40 per cent. more passengers, the trains will be more overcrowded.

John Redwood: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. The sum of 49 billion was allocated to the railways in the 10-year plan. Much of that has already been spent, much of it wasted. Will my hon. Friend confirm that, with the single exception of finishing off the Conservative scheme for the cross-channel rail link, the Government are not adding to the capacity of the network by building new railway lines? The money is just disappearing.

Chris Grayling: Even more astonishing is the fact that not only are the Government not adding to capacity, as they promised, setting out scheme after scheme for improvement, but all schemes have been shelved, postponed or kicked into the long grass. That is happening throughout our transport system.
	The second problem is that passengers will pay more and more to travel on overcrowded trains. The same franchise agreementsthe same small printrequires an increased contribution from passengers. That is what happened with the fare increases at the start of January. Let nobody think that is simply the work of private sector rail companies: the finances of the rail industry are dictated closely by the Government in the franchise agreements they set up. Those agreements are predicated on higher and higher fares in the years aheada higher price for more crowded trains. Passengers will believe that that is not good enough.

Phyllis Starkey: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that his simple argument about passenger numbers and capacity works only if all those passengers travel at peak time? Off-peak, there is enormous capacity in existing trains, so we need to look at policies that encourage people to work flexitime. It is not the simple equation that he suggested.

Chris Grayling: Yes, it is true that the busiest trains are at peak times, but if the hon. Lady has travelled on a long-distance train recently she will know that passengers frequently have to stand from Birmingham to Manchester, or from London to Birmingham. It is not simply a question of peak or off-peak; there are congestion problems across the network. It may be desirable that the commuters of Milton Keynes work more flexibly, but I am sure that the hon. Lady would not tell them that she did not want them to travel to work in the mornings. Most people have no option; they have to travel to work within a certain window of time. Simply pricing them out of peak times is not good enough.
	There are similar problems on the roads. Motorists could be forgiven if they were confused about the Government's roads strategy over the past few years. When Labour took office they scrapped all the road schemes. The Deputy Prime Minister said that he would have failed if he had not cut road usage over the next five years. National schemes were cut. Smaller local schemes were cut. The money to fund small schemes throughout the country evaporated.

Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case indeed[Interruption.] He certainly is. Is he aware that a number of villages in my constituency on the A47 between King's Lynn and Norwich are crying out for bypasses? The schemes were cut by the Deputy Prime Minister in 1997; now all we get are multi-modal studies. All studies and no action. Many of my constituents are crying out for action from the Government, but they are not getting it.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend's comments speak for themselves[Laughter.] There may be mirth on the Labour Benches, but Labour Members should find out about their constituents' experience of travelling in this country. The issue will become bigger and bigger, and Labour Members will be held to account for the Government's failings on transport.
	Average road speeds are dropping and average travel times on the roads are increasing. The amount of traffic is increasing yet all the schemes that could make a difference are, as my hon. Friend said, on hold or delayed, or no decision has been taken.

Sadiq Khan: The hon. Gentleman said that traffic and travel times on the roads are increasing. Does he accept, however, that London offers a classic example and that when the Mayor introduced congestion charges it led not just to fewer cars being used, and thus less time spent in traffic, but lower emission rates? Will he join me not just in congratulating the Mayor of London but in welcoming the introduction of the congestion charge?

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman, as a London Member, should be aware that such matters are devolved. I am interested in holding the Secretary of State for Transport to account. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Mayor of London is responsible for the congestion charge, not the Secretary of State.
	The truth is that things were not meant to be like this. The Deputy Prime Minister presented a 10-year plan that, he said, would ease all the congestion in the transport system. We were promised wholesale change by 2010.

Dawn Butler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Grayling: I want to make a bit more progress.
	The Deputy Prime Minister said:
	Now we have a 10 Year Plan that will deliver the scale of resources required to put integrated transport into practice. It will also deliver radical improvements for passengers, motorists, business[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We do not want any more sedentary interventions, particularly not from those on the Parliamentary Private Secretary Bench.

Chris Grayling: Labour Members are trying to divert attention from the Government's transport failures.

Phyllis Starkey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it permissible for a member of the Opposition Front-Bench team to pretend to be a Back Bencher by moving between the Front Bench and the Back Benches in the middle of debate? Are the Opposition so short of Back Benchers?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not a matter for the occupant of the Chair if hon. Members choose to move around the Chamber to make their comments from different places.

Chris Grayling: All Opposition Members are determined to represent the interests of our constituents on this important issue.
	The Government have set out promise after promise to hon. Members and people in the country. They promised us that, by 2010, they would modernise our main rail arteriesthe west and east coast main lines and the great western routeand upgrade our suburban railways in London, Birmingham and Manchester. They promised less congestion and more rail freight, with upgrades to the routes to ports. They promised that Thameslink 2000 would be opened to improve north-south traffic in London and that Crossrail would be complete and easing east-west congestion in London.
	The Government also promised us a huge jump forward in light rapid transit systems in our cities, with 25 new light rail routes; a big jump in work on our road network and major new road schemes around the country; and a widening of 5 per cent. of the road network and low-noise surfaces on 60 per cent. of our road network. They are all great promises, but I have always suspected that the Secretary of State for Transport was a little embarrassed to inherit so many of them. However, he seemed enthusiastic enough about them when he took over. He said:
	The Ten Year Plan represents our key reform in the delivery of the government's transport objectives.
	It is time for a half term report on the plan. How much visible progress has been made in the past five years? How much of the plan has come to fruition? How much of it is on the way to coming to fruition? There is no doubt that some things have been done. The west coast main line is being modernised. The channel tunnel rail link is approaching completion. The M25 has been widened in places, although a mischievous journalist told me that the Secretary of State's sole transport legacy to Britain would be that he added an extra lane to the M25. There have been some other new road schemes, and a couple of new tram routes, but the truth is that most of the plan has disappeared without trace.
	On the railways, most of the promises have disappeared into thin air, or at least into the long grass. The east coast main line modernisation has disappeared to the point where a battle is going on. A company wants to run trains from Sunderland, and GNER wants to run extra trains from Leeds. There is not, however, enough room for both of them to do so. The great western main line improvement has been completely forgotten. The rather inaptly named Thameslink 2000 service has no chance of opening this decade andwould hon. Members believe it?the Government are planning to preside over a ghost station under St. Pancras because they cannot afford the final part of the interchange between Thameslink trains and the new channel tunnel rail terminus. Let us imagine what will happen: for the next 10 years, passengers will travel non-stop through an empty station before getting off at the next station and walking back to link up with channel tunnel trains. Is that not a damning indictment of the Government's failings on transport?

Martin Horwood: If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about transport schemes not going ahead, he should visit Gloucestershire, where the new Conservative administration in the county council has just cut 10 million from the integrated transport budget, which has been described by the non-party Cheltenham strategic partnership as representing
	a fundamental shift away from the implementation of sustainable, socially inclusive transport policies,
	thus putting at risk Government funding that may come to Gloucestershire. We are hearing Tory words, but is it not clear that the Tories act very differently in our constituencies?

Chris Grayling: The Liberal Democrats are the last people who should accuse others of saying one thing in one place and another thing in Westminster. The hon. Gentleman will realise that the lack of joined-up government means that although the Department for Transport might aspire to improve transport facilities throughout the country, the Deputy Prime Minister is cutting funding to local authorities in county areas, which is making it impossible for authorities to do what they want to do.

Edward Miliband: The hon. Gentleman's speech is premised on the idea that we are not spending enough on transport. That would be fine if the Leader of the Opposition wanted to spend more, but he criticises us for spending too much across the board. How does the hon. Gentleman square those two positions?

Chris Grayling: If the hon. Gentleman is patient, he will find that my thesis is not that the Government are spending inadequate sums. I am asking the Government how it is possible to spend so much extra money on the transport systemthe motion refers specifically to the amounts that are being spentyet fail to deliver so many of the things that were promised.
	There are many examples of that. We know about Crossrail. Targets for rail freight have been abandoned and the upgraded links to ports such as Felixstowe have been downgraded. The subsidy for rail freight has been cut in half. There were plans to allow suburban rail lines to take more passengers by adding extra coaches and lengthening platforms, but the Government paid South West Trains to take out a carriage from planned new trains because they abandoned plans to lengthen platforms. That was doubly ironic because one of the explicit promises in the 10-year plan was to cut congestion and ensure that no passenger stood for more than 20 minutes. You will know from travelling in from East Anglia, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as do many of us from travelling on trains around London and the experiences of our constituents, that that aspiration is a million miles from reality in far too many places. Worryingly, as I said to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey), passengers are standing on inter-city services, too.
	There was a much vaunted promise to open 25 new light rail lines. I understand that the Secretary of State has taken a hard look at the economics of trams and has reached the view that guided busways are better light rapid transit systems than trams. However, if we accept that he has taken that decision, where are all the guided busway schemes? I asked him in a written question last week how many of the 25 rapid transit schemes were on the way. A couple have opened so far and there are about six more in development, although it is by no means certain that they will be open by 2010another promise broken.
	The Secretary of State made a whole string of promises on roads to put flesh on the bones of the general announcements in the 10-year plan, but many are back on hold again. The Stonehenge tunnel was given the go-ahead in 2002, but put on hold again last week. Improvements to the M6 were announced in 2002, but there is no sign of them happening. Improvements to the M1 are on hold. The link between the M6 toll road and the M54 that was announced in 2003 was still a matter of debate during Transport questions last week. Improvements to the A14 were announced in 2003, but we have seen nothing yet. Smaller projects, such as the Kiln lane link in my constituency, were announced three or four years ago, but are now back on hold again. There have been lots of promises and press releases, but the bulldozers remain firmly in their garages. The Government pledged to treble the number of cycling trips in the 10-year plan, but the number of trips is falling, not rising.

Margaret Moran: The hon. Gentleman refers to the failure to complete guided busways and widen the M1. Is he aware that my constituency will have the new Translink guided busway by 2008 due to an investment of some 84 million? The M1 will be widened between junctions 6a and 10 due to investment of 240 million. Those projects represent part of the investment of around 218 million in my area that proves that our 10-year transport plan is working, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman says.

Chris Grayling: The hon. Lady clearly demonstrates a good reason why we should be worried about the Government's numeracy strategy. Even if she is right that one busway will be approved and constructed in her constituency, rather than losing Government support, as many others have, there will still be 24 more to go. Believe me, the Government are nowhere near meeting their commitment on 25 new rapid transit systems by 2010. However, as I said to the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Edward Miliband), we recognise in the motion the fact that more money is being spent.

Michael Wills: The hon. Gentleman has been generous in giving way, but will he clarify his attitude towards investment? In my constituency, we have seen the benefits of the investment. In 1996, the Conservative Government cancelled, arbitrarily and suddenly, the Blunsdon bypass, which was to bring much-needed relief to that community. This Government have invested the money to put that bypass back, for which the whole of Blunsdon is very grateful. This Government have trebled the amount of funding going to Wiltshire county council for its local transport plans. As a result, we are seeing much needed traffic-mitigation measures in the village of Cricklade in my constituency. The Government have quintupled the amount of funding going to Swindon borough council

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has given us enough to work on for the time being.

Chris Grayling: As I was about to say, I fully accept that the Government have increased their budgets. Indeed, the Secretary of State has boosted spending beyond the original 10-year plan forecast. He said in 2004 that the spending review
	raises planned spending over the next three years from 10.4 billion this year to more than 12.8 billion by 2007. That is 60 per cent. more in real terms than in 1997. Spending will be higher than the investment plans we set out four years ago. By   2010, we will be spending 1.2 billion more per year than the 10-year plan envisaged.[Official Report, 20 July 2004; Vol. 424, c. 158.]
	He frequently boasts that he is spending 87 million a week on the railways, and he is right. It is not quite as much as that in this financial year, but it certainly will be in the next. Five years ago the Government were spending 1 billion; in the coming financial year it will be 5 billion. Over the same period the Highways Agency budget has gone up from 3 billion to around 5.4 billion. The Government have provided an extra 1 billion a year for transport in London.
	So if all this extra money has been provided and all these extra sums are being found, why, five years after the publication of the 10-year plan, which was lauded by the Secretary of State, have so many of its projects designed to ease congestion by 2010 disappeared? That is the conundrum; that is what the Secretary of State needs to ask himself. If the Government are spending so much money, where is it going?
	The Secretary of State will undoubtedly tell us later that he is trying to catch up with decades of under-investment on the transport network. If that is the case, why did the Government make all those promises, produce a 10-year plan, set out all the different things that they were going to do by 2010 and walk away from those commitments less than five years later? That is what this House has a right to know. Without the expansion in capacity that those projects represented, the travelling public face years and years of additional congestion.
	All around the network projects are being cancelled and promises are being broken. Last week I received a written answer from the Secretary of State showing that of the 112 road schemes that had made it into the Government's targeted programme of improvements, only 32 have been completed. We know from hon. Members around the House that in very many parts of the countryobviously not in the constituency of the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), but in the constituencies of hon. Members throughout the Houseprojects that were planned and promised are not happening.
	I think of projects such as the improvements to road surfacing. Anyone who has been down to see the A30 in the west country knows that the noisy road surface there is causing real distress to residents who live close to it. The Government promisedthe Prime Minister promisedthat they would deal with that and that they would renew those road surfaces by 2007. I discovered recently that last summer Ministers sent a memo around the Highways Agency saying, We're going to drop the commitment to replace noisy road surfaces. We're not going to make a public statement or one to the House, but here's a line to take in case anybody asks a difficult question. That is another promise broken.
	What happened to the rail schemes? What did happen to the east coast modernisation, to longer platforms for suburban trains, to plans for Crossrail by 2010 and to Thameslink 2000? What happened to the new transit systems? What happened to the push to increase cycling? I cannot understand why the Government made so many promises, set out so many new schemes, spent so much extra money, and yet all those schemes have been abandoned. I await with interest to hear the Secretary of State explain specifically why.
	We were told in the 10-year plan document that there was more than enough money to deliver all the Government's promises, which in turn has proved to be another worthless promise. May I ask the Secretary of State how it is possible to promise so much and deliver so little? I listen carefully to his speeches, but he seems to have only one idea left to tackle Britain's transport problems, and that is his plan to introduce a nationwide system of road pricing. His grand road pricing scheme may play a part in future public policy on transport. We need to look at that and discuss it with him, but first he must answer important questions about how it will work, how it will be paid for, and how it will be enforced. Another question, however, is top of the list. It is self-evident that we cannot use road pricing to encourage people to leave their cars at home if we do not give them any alternative transport. Where are those alternatives? They are not provided by rush-hour trains, which increasingly suffer from overcrowding that far exceeds health and safety guidelines. They are not provided by buses, because in most of the country outside London services are all too infrequent. They are not provided by tram routes, which the Government promised but which they will no longer provide. What is the alternative that the Government are providing for the travellers whom they said they want to encourage off Britain's roads? At the moment, the answer to that question is virtually nothing at all.
	The Government have been in power for nearly nine years. Today's Ministers have no more idea about how to make transport in this country better than they did 10 years ago, even after endless studies, White Papers and blue-skies thinking. We need a proper transport strategy. We need quick improvements to ease congestion and increase capacity. We need value for money from vastly increased Government spending. We need a long-term plan, both to support economic growth and to ensure that our transport system does not destroy our environment. We will not obtain that plan from a Government who have run out of ideas. Things are not going to get better under Labour. It will be the job of the next Conservative Government to start getting British transport back on track.

Alistair Darling: I beg to move, To leave out from House to the end of the Question, and add instead thereof:
	acknowledges the importance of providing a clear strategy of sustained long-term investment and forward planning to address decades of under-investment in the transport system; welcomes the further investment and new strategic framework provided by the subsequent Future of Transport White Paper; recognises the achievements since the 10 Year Plan was published, including the highest number of people using the railways since the 1960s and the delivery of major strategic road schemes, with further schemes either under way or due to start before April 2008; acknowledges that one of the main reasons for the continuing pressure on transport networks is that the United Kingdom is enjoying the longest period of sustained economic growth for more than 200 years; and supports the Government's determination to take the decisions which will be required to meet these pressures and put UK transport on a sustainable footing, including tackling the environmental impacts of transport, trialling road-pricing and building on the improvements in rail performance, as well as planning for long-term transport needs.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) for giving us another opportunity to debate transport, thus enabling me to point out the differences in approach between the Conservatives and ourselves. I hoped that he would devote rather more than the final page of his speech to what the Conservatives would do differently, but one never knows from one day to the next what Conservative policy is, so he is bound to be cautious. In the four years that I have served as Secretary of State, I have lost count of the number of shadow Secretaries of State who have been and gone. I live in hope that we will hear just one idea from one of them about what we ought to do in future.

John Pugh: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Alistair Darling: I am not going to speak for ages as I usually do, and I should like to deal with the case that has been made. As the Liberal Democrats are doing so well, however, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh).

John Pugh: I should like to make a specific point. A question that was dodged throughout by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) concerned the Conservative attitude to congestion charging in London, given that the party now has a leader who is a prominent London cyclist.

Alistair Darling: The right hon. Gentleman is on some days, I am sure.
	May I start with the railways? I do not want to spend much time revisiting the history of Britain's transport system. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell is entitled to ask questions about the Government's policy, but it is worth reminding him where we started. In 1997, we inherited a botched privatisation, and Railtrack, which was the Tories' poll tax on wheels, had lost control of its expenditure. Hatfield showed that it did not have any idea about the state of the network for which it was responsible, and eventually it became bankrupt. When we last debated these matters, the House will recall the damning indictments in the court judgment of the poor state of the track and the incompetence of the people whom the Conservatives had allowed to run our railways. In addition, we faced a period of falling expenditure. In the year before the general election in 1997 not a single new railway train was deliveredthe orders had just dried up. Against that background, it is not surprising that we needed to ensure that we did a number of things to improve our network.
	The hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the fact that we have doubled spending on the railways and asked where the money had gone. May I give him some examples? In 200405, 626 miles of railway were replaced. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the west coast main line. Seven and a half billion pounds were invested in that. New state-of-the-art trains are running on that line, which have cut the journey time to Glasgow by 30 minutes and to Birmingham by 20 minutes, with greater frequency available. The southern region power supply had to be upgraded because Railtrack did not appreciate that new trains could not run off a power supply system that was basically installed in the 1930s. Phase 1 of the channel tunnel rail link was opened, cutting the journey time to Paris by 20 minutes.

John Redwood: That was a Conservative Government scheme.

Alistair Darling: I am sorry to tell the right hon. Gentleman that this Government had to rescue the scheme because the financial arrangements set up by the previous Government had collapsed by 1998. It was therefore necessary for us to put the scheme back on the rails, so to speak, and it was delivered on time and on budget. Phase 2 starts next year. Anyone going to St.   Pancras now will see the results of huge sums of money being spent on the railways, which will bring real benefit.
	We have had the biggest rolling stock replacement ever. Almost 40 per cent. of railway carriages have been replaced over the past few years, many of them on the very London commuter services that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell uses and which he mentioned.

Several hon. Members: rose

Alistair Darling: I will give way in a moment.
	All that has been done at a time when more people are travelling on the railways than at almost any time since the second world war. There are more than 2,000 additional weekday services than there were in 199697. That is another example of how we can reduce overcrowding. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell is rightthat is the big challenge now. Having brought up reliability from an unacceptably low level of performance in the past, we now need to make sure that we can cater for the additional passengers that we want to carry. Also, we have introduced the train protection warning system across the network.
	In London, 1 billion a year is being spent on the tube. The hon. Gentleman should pay tribute to the Labour Mayor who is doing that. The Jubilee line extension and the docklands light railway opened just before Christmas. He mentioned trams. Yes, there have been difficulties with three schemes, but it is worth noting that Nottingham tram, which I opened about 18 months ago, is doing extremely well.
	More people are travelling by train, more money is being put in after years of underinvestment and there are more railway carriagesall that seems to me to compare favourably with what we inherited from the Conservatives when they lost office in 1997. Of course, there is more to do. I am about to come to roads, and a similar point must be made in that context, but in the interests of equity I shall give way to the Conservatives before the Liberals.

Charles Walker: I am sorry to ambush the right hon. Gentleman, but we have some capacity problems on the Broxbourne to Cheshunt line, which we share with the Stansted Express. Would it be possible for me to write to the Secretary of State and perhaps have a meeting with him or one of his Ministers to discuss ways of getting extra capacity on that line without any additional cost to the public purseperhaps by getting BAA to make a slightly largely contribution, and possibly letting us share some of its Stansted Express trains?

Alistair Darling: If the hon. Gentleman wrote, I am sure that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), would be happy to meet him. If the hon. Gentleman can persuade BAA to pay for increased capacity as far south as Cheshunt into Liverpool street, I will happily join him, although I am not sure that BAA will accept that propositionat least, not without some persuasion. However, the hon. Gentleman is right. That is a case of a railway line on which there has been a huge increase in the number of passengers. With the additional housing that we know about, never mind the housing that is coming, plus the developments at Stansted airport, capacity is one of the big issues that need to be addressed. I shall return to how we do that.

Andrew Gwynne: My right hon. Friend briefly mentioned trams. In Greater Manchester progress has been made, hopefully, in respect of Metrolink, not least through the authority's acceptance of the risk. Did he glean from the shadow Minister's opening speech that a future Conservative Government would write a blank cheque to capital schemes with costs spiralling out of control?

Alistair Darling: I have yet to be persuaded that the Conservatives would spend the same amount as we are spending, let alone more. I shall deal with that shortly. Although I have said time and again that money is not everything in transport, if we do not spend the money, we cannot be surprised if the infrastructure is not there or if it begins to crumble.
	The hon. Gentleman began his new position with a flurry of activity on 1 JanuaryI come from north of the border, where 1 January is not the obvious day on which to start such thingsincluding a press release condemning the Government on their lack of progress. That press release, which included the complaint that we had junked a number of road schemes, was re-released on 26 January, which at least shows that it was durable. I was surprised that the press release said that we had junked the A120 Stansted to Braintree road, because that road opened in July 2004. He also drew attention to the A46 Newark to Lincoln road, with which I am not familiar, although I understand that it opened in July 2003.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the Secretary of State address the Chair, not only for my sake, but for the sake of the microphones?

Alistair Darling: With pleasure, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	The hon. Gentleman also complained about the A1(M) Ferrybridge to Hook Moor road, from which he said the Government had walked away. That is surprising, because it is being built at the moment, and anyone who visits the area can see construction taking place. I therefore take the hon. Gentleman's complaints with a pinch of salt. There are undoubtedly areas in which we could do better and there are roads that remain to be built, but he and I could travel together down the A120 or the A46 and appreciate the investment by the Labour Government.

Chris Grayling: I am sorry for misleading people in that press release. I always try to rely on impeccable sources for my information, and in that case my source was the Highways Agency website, so something is clearly going wrong in the Secretary of State's Department. Perhaps he should tell the Highways Agency to provide more accurate information on which Opposition Members can rely.

Alistair Darling: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got his information. However, if he travels down two of those roads, he will find that they have been open for some time, while the third is under construction.
	In 1989, the then Conservative Government announced some 500 road construction schemes worth 12 billion, but the programme had fallen to 150 schemes worth 7 billion by 1997. That Conservative Government axed 237 road schemes in almost every county in the country. Why did that happen? It was not because the Conservative party suddenly acquired environmental credentials. The House will recall that the early 1990s saw one of the deepest recessions of the past century. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has mentioned the exchange rate mechanism, which I can see is a fond memory. He will also remember who was special adviser to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time. [Hon. Members: Who?] The current leader of the Conservative party. That Conservative Government got into difficulties because when their economic policy failed, their transport policy collapsed with it.
	I am interested to know the Conservative policy on roads. On 8 November last year, the leader of the Tory party said:
	Britain now needs a concerted programme of road building.
	That was before his election as leader of the Conservative party. At the beginning of January, however, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who heads the commission advising the Conservatives on transport policy, said:
	There is no doubt about itthere must be an assumption against road building.
	In the space of a month, the leader said that we need a road-building programme, and the adviser said that there should be a presumption against road building. I am willing to be flexible, but I cannot see how a major road-building programme can be reconciled with a presumption against road building. That beggars belief and perhaps illustrates some of the problems that the Tories are getting themselves into. We look forward to the day when they nail their colours to the mast, because many of the nods and the winks will not be borne out.

David Taylor: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the best ways of summarising the case that he is making very effectively is that long-term average investment in transport infrastructure in Europe is about 1 per cent. of GDP, yet in this country over the past 25 years, for two thirds of which we had Conservative Governments, it has been a full one third less than that? It takes asubstantial period, does it not, to redress underinvestment over such a lengthy period, and are we not relatively happy with the progress that has been made so far?

Alistair Darling: I think that all of us would prefer to make progress as fast as we possibly can. My hon. Friend is right to say that one of the problems with transport is that it sometimes takes a frustratingly long time to see the results.
	Let me respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. Since 2001, 35 major trunk road and motorway schemes have been completed. Fifteen are under construction and a further 21 will start in the next three years. I think that the House will recognise that, yes, there will be changes in the road programme from time to time, but we have been able to put money into the road programme, as we have into the railways, to ensure that we improve transport.

John Redwood: I should like to clarify something for the right hon. Gentleman. Conservative policy will be expressed and defined by the leader of the party and the relevant shadow spokesmen, so he should listen to what the leader says. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) has his own views, which he will express through the policy group on the environment. As chairman of the economic competitiveness group, I will also be thinking about transport issues and will doubtless draw attention to the need for more capacity of all kinds for the sake of a growing economy. Our advice will go into the pot in 18 months' time, out of which will come a revised and even better Conservative policy than the one that we currently have. I think that that is very clear.

Alistair Darling: I certainly hope that it is better than the current policy, because there is no current policy at all. It does not matter whose policy it isI look forward to it in any case.

Sadiq Khan: My right hon. Friend talked about the legacy of the decades of underinvestment. Was he as surprised as me to hear no mention from the Opposition of the fact that more than half of our stations are inaccessible to disabled peoplefor example, Earlsfield in my constituency? Can he confirm that there are plans to invest more than 370 million over the next 10 years on making those stations accessible to disabled people and, for example, to young mothers with buggies?

Alistair Darling: We are very aware of that. The problem is that many of our stations were designed by the Victorians before access was considered a problem. We hope to make an announcement on that shortly.

James McGovern: The other night, I had the dubious pleasure of working through the official Opposition's manifesto, largely to try to get an idea of their views on transport. Does my right hon. Friend agree that any party that devotes seven lines of text in its manifesto to this very important subject does not deserve to have an Opposition day debate on it?

Alistair Darling: I am more generous; I enjoy the opportunity to explore exactly what the Conservatives' thinking is on transport. Sadly, today is no exception.

Paul Rowen: rose

Alistair Darling: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. In fairness to him, I was about to say one or two things about the Liberals. Their amendment was not selected, but I can anticipate what the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) is going to say because I read his press release. He circulated it for three days, but has yet to have it picked up by any of the newspapers, so I will help him out. He complains about an apparent increase in the cost of the roads programme. I draw his attention to the fact that since 2003I make no bones about thiswe have built in a so-called optimism bias, because some of the costs were not realistic.
	There has also been an increase in construction costs. The comment by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell about bulldozers in garages is simply not truewould that it were, in some ways. The problem is that so much construction is going on that there has been some inflation in construction costs. That is why these projects are costing more. Often when the optimism bias is built in, it reduces as the costs bottom out. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington agrees with his acting leader, who said in The Scotsman today that he thought that public expenditure was high enough and that the Liberals would no longer campaign for an increase in it. The Liberals' normal position is that we ought to spend more, not less, on transport.

Tom Brake: I am happy with the position that the acting leader has adopted.
	Will the Secretary of State confirm that the parliamentary answer that I received from him states that, taking VAT, inflation and optimism bias into account, there is an overrun of 1 billion on road-building projects from before 2003?

Alistair Darling: No.

Tom Brake: That is what the answer states.

Alistair Darling: Of course I know what the answer said but, as I explained briefly, we are taking a far more realistic view of what projects are likely to cost. Under successive Governments, people have presented projects, said that they would cost x but they ultimately cost x plus 20 per cent.

Paul Rowen: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Alistair Darling: I shall shortly. I promised the hon. Gentleman that I would and I keep my promises.
	We need to be more realistic. There is no doubt that, in several cases, costs have been higher than we thought they would be. That is a general problem that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell could have cited. I do not believe that anyone realised the true state of the railways in the late 1990s. It was not until Railtrack went bust and we could open the books that we realised how much money had to be spent on putting the railways back on a proper footing.

Paul Rowen: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for finally giving way. Why is he not prepared to accept the same cost overruns for light rail schemes as he accepts for road building? Indeed, he has cited cost overruns as a reason for scrapping several light rail schemes. Is not that a case of one rule for road building and another for light rail?

Alistair Darling: No, it is not. Earlier, the hon. Gentleman complained that we refused to sanction the big cost increase in the tunnel at Stonehenge. I wanted the tunnel go ahead because it would have been great to move the traffic away from a national monument. However, the ground conditions are far worse than people thought and the cost would have increased dramatically. When the cost of a tunnel is 500 million, one has to think about it. Even the Liberal Democrats, when they are in office in local government, tend to take a slightlyonly slightlymore realistic view of cost increases. Simply ignoring cost increases is fiscally incontinent.

Chris Grayling: The Stonehenge tunnel is a good example and I understand the Secretary of State's predicament. However, why did he announce the scheme before he knew how much it would cost? Why did not he do the work beforehand? Why does he announce new schemes only to work out subsequently that he cannot afford them?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman is right that I announced the Stonehenge scheme in 2002. An inquiry subsequently took place because of objections by the   National Trust and others. In the meantime, the Highways Agency did more exploratory drilling in the normal course of working up the scheme and discovered that the chalk, far from being firm, was moist. That meant an increase in cost. When faced with that, one has a choice. One could take the Liberal Democrat view of, It's somebody else's money, let's just do it, or decide, This is half a billion quid, we've got to be realistic. If we could get the road away from Stonehenge, most people would agree that that was a huge improvement. However, we cannot simply sign away projects regardless of the cost.
	The debate should be about what we do in the future. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell is right that there is general agreement that we can blame successive GovernmentsLabour and Tory, and probably Liberal when they were in power[Interruption.] Gladstone had his weaknesses.

David Taylor: For fallen women.

Alistair Darling: Yes. In those days, the tabloid press was not as bad as it is now.
	We can all sign up to the proposition that successive Governments did not spend as much as they should have done. That is why we have increased investment. Let us not forget that the Opposition have voted against every singly penny of that increase since 1997. The reason I sought to draw the hon. Gentleman earlier on his spending proposals was that the shadow Chancellor said about future spending:
	It is called sharing the proceeds of growth.
	The long and the short of it is that the Conservatives would not spend as much as we are spending, and we are entitled at some stage to find out where they would spend less, how much less it would be, and what the implications would be.

Martin Horwood: As we have had no clarification from the Conservatives on this matter, may I tell the House that when they took over in Gloucestershire, they cut bus priority schemes, park-and-ride schemes and the planned purchase of new buses? Perhaps that is an indication of their direction of travel.

Alistair Darling: We have learned a lot about Gloucestershire this afternoon. I do not think that I can add to what the hon. Gentleman has said.
	When the 10-year plan was launched in 2000, it was the first time that any Government had been prepared to set out transport planning for 10 years. Conservative Members who have been Ministers will know that the old days of annual spending rounds and stop-go spending were ruinous for transport. The reason for things going wrong with many road and rail schemes is that people thought that they had the money for them, only to discover that they did not.
	The 10-year plan was a big achievement. However, I make no bones about the fact that there have been changes to it since it was published. The day I was appointed to this job I said that I was going to review it, see whether it was right and make any changes that were appropriate. And I did. I announced them in 2004, so in some ways the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell is about two years behind on these matters.
	Our policy is quite clear: we need sustained investment and, in additionthis is important, because I agree that money is not everythingwe need better management. I have already talked about Network Rail, but on the roads we now have traffic officers who clear up after incidents. Instead of a road being shut for five or six hours after a lorry crash, for example, it can now reopen much more quickly. Following the explosion at Buncefield just before Christmas, we thought that the motorway might have to be shut for several hours, but because of the action taken by the traffic officers, it was able to be reopened much more quickly. The Traffic Management Act 2004 will make it more difficult for people repeatedly to dig up roads, sometimes for weeks on end and with no obvious signs of activity taking place.
	The third strand to our policy, in addition to investment and management, is our ability to plan ahead for the long term. That strikes me as the subject that the public really want to hear about, rather than past glories and failures.

Russell Brown: The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) spoke on behalf of the Conservatives for almost 30 minutes, yet he made no mention of rural bus services. My suspicion is that the failed deregulation of the bus services in the 1980s was the reason for his not mentioning that subject. Will the Secretary of State explain in detail what has now been done for bus service provision in rural localities?

Alistair Darling: I will. I want to say something about bus services in the context of road pricing, so I will deal with that matter shortly.

Dawn Butler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is disappointing that the Conservatives made no mention in their manifesto of matching the Government's commitment of 350 million to ensure free bus travel for disabled and elderly people?

Alistair Darling: It is disappointing, but not surprising. I imagine that we shall deliver the same verdict on their next manifesto as well.
	In regard to planning for the long term, I want to concentrate on several issues. The House will recall that I published an aviation White Paper in 2003 which set out the long-term strategy for aviation over the next 20 to 30 years. I mention that because that is the kind of time scale that we need to think about in transport planning. The White Paper was widely welcomed as a good example of the Government being prepared to take a long-term view of these issues. I notice that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell said in the Evening Standard on 28 January:
	We are going to take a long hard look at government plans on aviation.
	Well, it is three years since we published the White Paper. I would have thought that we might have seen just a glimmer of the Conservatives' thinking on the matter by now.
	We reorganised the railways in a much more satisfactory way last year. Next year, we will publish our longer-term strategy on spending to 2015. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell is right that capacity is the key issue, not just on the railways but on the roads. We will address that then, when we will also have the benefit of the Eddington review and the longer-term strategy.
	We keep returning to the central issue of road congestion. I have said that we need additional capacity, especially at some of the big pinch points. We also need to manage the system better, which we are doing. I firmly believe, however, that we need to consider how road pricing can reduce congestion. We are all familiar with the problemtraffic is growing, the number of cars has increased by something like 60 per cent. in the past 25 years, people are travelling longer distances and more people have access to cars, partly because of economic prosperity. We can no longer say that the issue is 10 years awayit always will be unless we do something about it, and we are doing that.
	I am not quite sure where the Conservatives stand on this issue, because the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell sometimes gives the impression of being hostile. In November last year, as I said, he was critical of the satellite tracking of cars. I notice, however, that the Leader of the Opposition, in setting out his transport policywhich he appears to have lifted from my last speechtalks about investment management and then says that we should examine
	new solutions for road charging based on usage and time of day.
	He seems to be going one way. I am not sure how far the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell is going with him.
	We need to make progress in this area. In the next year or so, as I have told the House previously, I hope to decide in which part of the country we will trial road pricing. It will be a fairly large area, as it cannot be done on a small scale. I have made it clear that road pricing can work only if it is accompanied by a major improvement in public transport, and about 10 billion will be available through the transport innovation fund during the spending period to 2015. The congestion charge in London has worked partly because London has always had a better transport system. Ninety per cent. of people coming into central London do so by public transport. If it is to work outside London, we need to improve public transport, and we will do that.
	As part of thatthis brings me to the bus pointthe House might have noticed that I made it clear in a written statement last Thursday that we will change the current regime to ensure that in the areas where road pricing is to be trialled there will be greater control over bus services. If we are going to say to somebody, Don't take your car, we must be able to say that there is a train, tram or bus, and we must be satisfied as to the adequacy and reliability of the service. We have been talking to the Office of Fair Trading about that over the past few weeks, and because I am determined to press ahead I assure the House that we will make changes.
	In addition to that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr. Brown) was right to say, we will continue to improve rural bus services, and we will examine how bus usage can be improved outside London because there are areas where bus companies and local authorities could co-operate a bit more. If there is any impediment to that, we will do our best to remove it.

Chris Grayling: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Alistair Darling: I will do so in a moment, because the hon. Gentleman has been patient listening to my insults and criticisms.
	I hope that, at some point, the House will have a good opportunity to discuss road pricing, and perhaps we should arrange that. When I look ahead 20 years, I cannot see how we will deal with the congestion that we will face in this country unless we all agree on that approach. At some point in the future, Governments will change, and if we want such a long-term change to take place, we need a common approach. That is not to say that there are not difficult choices to be made and questions to be answered, but that is why we cannot leap into this tomorrow morning. It is probably one of the biggest transport issues that we face, however, and we need to make progress now.

Chris Grayling: I look forward with interest to hearing more about the Secretary of State's proposals and plans for a pilot scheme. We will examine that pilot scheme carefully, and he will find that we do so with a sceptical eye, as he would expect, as that is our job. He has talked about rural buses. Is he prepared to put on the record a commitment to rural railways, too, given the statement and the changed guidelines published last week? Is he prepared to commit to retaining intact the current rail network for the foreseeable future?

Alistair Darling: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's first point. I hope that he will engage with us constructively. I am happy for that to happen, formally or informally. As for the railways, what we published last Thursday were revised guidelines that were necessary following the abolition of the Strategic Rail Authority. In the introduction, I explained that while an increasing number of people were using the railways and I wanted that to continue, clearer guidelines were needed.
	I have said time and again that I am happy to support rural railway lines. The community development partnerships that we announced a couple of years ago are designed to give lines that are in the last chance saloon a chance to continue, and they have been quite successful. It beggars belief that we should reach a point at which no one is using a train or a station, and say that nothing can ever be done about it.
	The story in The IndependentI looked no further than the author's name before returning the newspaper to the shelfwas a complete exaggeration, but that is what he does, and we just have to live with it. I am pretty confident about the prospects for the railways, but to say that no network or service can ever change cannot be the right approach.
	The hon. Gentleman did not mention the fact that road pricing is a big challenge for us. Congestion is a challenge, but so is the environment, given the pollution caused by any form of transport. The European Union emissions trading scheme is advancing, mainly because of pressure from us and from other countries. We need to consider additional trading schemes. I announced a renewable transport fuel obligation of 5 per cent. last November, and we have made changes to vehicle taxation to encourage more environmentally friendly cars. The Mayor of London was able to announce a low   emission zone yesterday, thanks to legislation introduced by us.
	Those are all important developments and we should not forget about them, but many other things could be done at the same time. I understand from his press release that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington intends to refer to that as well, and I am with him to that extent. We and the Liberal Democrats may agree on the ends; the difference between us relates to the means. The Liberal Democrats are rather slow in coming forward in that regard.
	I welcome the debate. I am sorry that we do not yet know what the Conservative party policy is, but we do know, thanks to the right hon. Member for Wokingham, what the process is, and at least three people are contributing to it. There could be three policies at the end of that, but so much the better. We in the Labour party believe in choice.
	I commend the amendment to the House.

Tom Brake: Members can imagine how the suspense has built up in the last few months over the Conservative transport policy. We have been given tantalising glimpses of elusive education policies, veils have been lifted and swiftly dropped on law-and-order proposals, and health policies have been dangled before us and then whipped away.
	As the Secretary of State said, today's debate should have provided an opportunity for the Conservative spokesman to parade, in all its splendour, his party's position on transport, and to reconcile the views of his party's leader with those of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). I shall not repeat the quotations that the Secretary of State has already put on record, but he could also have quoted the Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth). When the Highways Agency invited tenders for the widening to four lanes the remaining three sections of the M25, he said:
	When the Heathrow section of the M25 was widened, I warned that the work would cause massive short-term disruption with no long-term benefit, since traffic volume would simply increase to fill the new capacity. Regrettably, this has turned out to be true.
	I fear the same will be the case for this new contract; all the evidence is that when you increase road capacity, traffic simply grows to fill it.
	The Secretary of State could have quoted those words from the hon. Member for East Surreywho is not here todayand encouraged the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) to try to reconcile those views. In fact, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell could have tried to reconcile the views of the leader of his party with those of the then hon. Member for Witney.

John Redwood: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would stop spreading odd comments about Conservative policy that are not true, and tell us about the Liberal Democrats' policies. Is he one of those who believe that they should clobber the car in urban areas and then say that they would not do it in rural areas, and explain how the two can be kept separate? Can he also tell us what are the differences between the three contenders for the leadership of his own little party on transport matters? I believe that they disagree wildly.

Tom Brake: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and leave it to him to highlight odd policies. I will come to Liberal Democrat policies at the end of my speech.
	The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell could have tried to reconcile the views of the leader of his party with those that the latter held when he was just an ordinary Member of Parliament. The Secretary of State quoted the right hon. Member for Witney as stating on 8 November that Britain now needs a concerted programme of road building. In a speech to the Renewable Energy Association on 1 December, the right hon. Member for Witney said that
	climate change is one of the three greatest challenges facing mankind today . . . Our carbon emissions have increased in five of the seven years from 1997 to 2004 . . . We're now on a track which, without a significant change of course, will lead to an increase, not a reduction, in carbon emissions in this country.
	It is clear that he wants both to build new roads and to reduce man-made greenhouse gas emissions, but the Department for Transport's own figures show that that is not possible. Unfortunately, new roads equal more traffic, which equals more emissions. The figures also show that just under 25 per cent. more traffic is going to be generated by road-building schemesand that is just by those schemes for which the Department can actually provide figures. Of course, we cannot be absolutely certain about the projected traffic increase, because figures exist for only 36 per cent. of the Department for Transport's schemes. Moreover, data on the increase in carbon dioxide emissions resulting from road-building schemes exist for fewer than half such schemes.
	It is also hard to reconcile the leader of the Conservative party's enthusiasm for confronting climate change, to which he referred in today's Prime Minister's questions, with the practice of Tory councils. I have some good examples. Barnet is well known for removing cycle lanes. In Bath, the Tory council tried to scrap a bus gate that allows buses easier access to the city centre. In Hampshire, the council voted last year to scrap funding for 18 bus routes and reduced funding for a further eight. [Interruption.] I hear cries of, Excellent! from the Conservative Front Benchperhaps it was from the Back Benches; I am not sure whichbut the official Opposition adopt many such transport policies.
	In West Berkshire, the Tory council slashed the highways capital budget, which meant less funding for cycle lanes. West Berkshire previously won an award for the most improved highway authority in England in respect of implementing measures to increase cycling. In Oxfordshire, plans have been shelved indefinitely to link a number of outlying villages to Abingdon. That is the record and I am afraid that it does not sit comfortably with the Conservative leader's recent pronouncements.
	I should not dwell for too long on Tory policies, but I should point out that their quality of life commission is right to seek to reconcile the irreconcilable.

John Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tom Brake: I happily give way to the right hon. Gentleman a further time.

John Redwood: In the light of the hon. Gentleman's argument that we should not build roads because people might use them, does he therefore think that we should not build hospitals because ill people might fill them? Does he further think that ill people might sometimes need roads to get to hospital?

Tom Brake: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his further intervention. We are clearly in very odd territory, which I shall leave to him.
	Reviewing the targets in the 10-year transport plan is an interesting intellectual exercise, but given that the Government have conceded that it is dead in the water, has jumped the rails and the wheels have fallen off, it is much more relevant to look at the targets issued in July 2004 and the Department for Transport's autumn performance report, which was published last December. In looking at those targets, we need to take particular account of what the Prime Minister said in the foreword to the report, Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change. He said that:
	it is now plain that the emission of greenhouse gases . . . is causing global warming at a rate that is unsustainable.
	The Department's current target is to provide transport that works for everyone, and I am sure that we can all agree with that. Other objectives include supporting the economy through the provision of
	efficient and reliable inter-regional transport systems.
	Part of that will involve the development of ways to measure congestion. Regrettably, we cannot assess the Department's performance in that respect, as details of progress are to be published at a later date.
	The Department's second target is to improve the punctuality and reliability of rail services. Good progress is reportedly being made, and I do not necessarily disagree, but what about overcrowding, to which the Secretary of State referred earlier? I know that he likes to consult my press releases, so he may be interested in one that was published late last year. It pointed out that, each day, 25,000 passengers on trains in and out of London travel in conditions that the Department's statistics officially designate as overcrowded. They are the lucky ones, of course. The unlucky ones are those who cannot get on the train in the first place, but their numbers are not taken into account.
	The increase in overcrowding on some services since 1997 has been phenomenal. On WAGN trains, overcrowding has increased by no less than 485 per cent., while on c2c's morning services it has risen by 263 per cent. The increase in overcrowding on various other services has also been very large, and the crush can only get worse in the poor weather that we can expect over the next couple of months.
	The Government cannot expect people to get off the roads and on to public transport when our trains are over capacity and there is no room to accommodate passengers. They must bring forward some concrete proposals and the Secretary of State has waxed lyrical about double-decker trains. I had hoped that he would have used his speech to say more about the progress being made in that regard, and perhaps the Minister of State will do so when he winds up. We would welcome some information about that, although I suspect that the plan has not gone much beyond speech making.
	Interestingly, the Department has no target for fares. That may be just as well, as there have been above inflation increases at a time when the network is severely overcrowded. Those rises have sent exactly the wrong signal, given that the Government are trying to get people out of cars and on to trains. Moreover, they entrench the UK's position as the country with the most expensive rail fares in Europe.

Philip Hollobone: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about fares. People in my Kettering constituency are paying more for their midland mainline services to London, but increasingly have to stand for an hour. Does he agree that, when the Government review rail franchises, they should include a clause that means that passengers who buy a ticket for a journey that lasts longer than, say, 15 or 20 minutes are entitled to a seat?

Tom Brake: The hon. Gentleman raised a similar possibility in Transport questions. It is a valid point and I hope that the Minister of State will be able to give us both some comfort about overcrowding and what passengers can look forward to in years to come.
	I am grateful to the Thomas Cook agency for producing a helpful report that confirms that, for 10, people can travel 300 miles in Slovakia and 200 in Italy, but only 38 in Britain. They can go three times further than that in France. For 10, people in Britain can get to the next county if they are lucky, whereas in most European nations they can get to the next country.
	The Government's second transport objective was to improve the accessibility, punctuality and reliability of local and regional transport systems, and to look at buses. The Secretary of State was asked about rural bus services today and the second target on bus services related to growth in patronage in every region. According to the Department's autumn performance report, that target remains challenging, which I think is code for, We will miss it by a mile. According to a parliamentary written answer, the number of passengers is down 13 per cent. in the north-east, 10 per cent. in the west midlands, 9 per cent. in the east of England, and 9 per cent. in Yorkshire and the Humber.
	The only comfort for the Government is performance in London, which is very good. Hon. Members have congratulated the Mayor on his congestion charging policy, which, incidentally, the Liberal Democrats were almost alone in supporting before its introduction. It was only once the Government had the comfort of knowing that that had been a success that they were willing to go on the record to congratulate the Mayor.

Alistair Darling: Why were the Liberal Democrats against the Edinburgh congestion charge?

Tom Brake: I expected that intervention. It is up to local parties to decide whether to support a scheme. We supported the Mayor's proposals for the London scheme, when there was almost a total absence of support on the Government Benches. Perhaps the Secretary of State can confirm that, in Edinburgh, the Liberal Democrats and almost all the Opposition parties were against the proposal, as, I understand, were all the Labour councils in the surrounding area. Clearly, there were failings in that scheme, which Labour councils identified just as the Liberal Democrats did.

Chris Grayling: If the hon. Gentleman and his party believe philosophically in allowing local authorities and local party groups to take their own decisions, why does he stand up in this place to criticise other parties for decisions taken locally?

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but it would be helpful if he illustrated the point he is making. If he expects any political party, including his own, to apply a policy uniformly across the whole country, I should welcome it. It is not the position that the Liberal Democrats adopt.
	The targets also cover light rail and we all know what the Government's performance has been on that over the last year or so. We had the Leeds supertram, when funding was provided for the scheme at almost the same time as the Government were negotiating an alternative bus solution. They gave people the impression that the tram would proceed while negotiating behind closed doors with an alternative provider, and 39 million of public funding spent on that has been lost.
	There was the Manchester tram, too, and now we have the situation in relation to Merseytram. That matter is being discussed in the High Court today, and I received a letter from the chief executive of MerseytravelI understand it is a matter of public record, or so widely in the public domain that I can discuss itstating that on 29 November the Government gave a not accurate summary of recent events, which was subsequently repeated by the Prime Minister at Question Time the next day. In fact, a none-too-accurate summary of the Government's own position was given. Whether it is buses or trams

Alistair Darling: It might help the House to learn that about an hour ago the Merseytram application for judicial review was dismissed.

Tom Brake: I thank the Secretary of State for clarifying that. If he has not received a copy of this letter, I would be happy to send him one so that he can respond specifically to the allegation that the information that was provided to Members, by Ministers and by the Prime Minister, was inaccurate.

Mark Lazarowicz: The hon. Gentleman reminded us that his party strongly opposed the Edinburgh congestion charge. I am sure that he is aware that, as a result of that defeat, inspired by the Liberal Democrats and others, the city council now faces a shortfall in its budget for its light rail schemes. Given what the hon. Gentleman is saying, I would have thought that the Liberal Democrats would want to see that shortfall met. Unfortunately, the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications on the Scottish Executive, who is a Liberal Democrat, has turned down the request for extra funding. Will the hon. Gentleman urge his colleague to supply that extra funding?

Tom Brake: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition Government in Scotland, so it is unfair to heap responsibility solely on a Liberal Democrat Minister. The hon. Gentleman implies that Liberal Democrats should be in favour of congestion charge schemes wherever they are and whatever form they take. That would be an irresponsible position. We need to look at each individual congestion charging scheme and see whether it is appropriate for that city. In London, we felt that it was appropriate; in Edinburgh, we did not.

John Pugh: The Secretary of State answered his own question. He said that in order to have a good congestion charge that works well, one needs an enviable transport structure, including an underground and other services that London has and Edinburgh has not.

Tom Brake: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. One of the necessities for the introduction of a congestion charge is a public transport network that provides people with an alternative when the scheme is introduced.

Mark Lazarowicz: Given the hon. Gentleman's obvious hostility to new road building, will he confirm that he opposes the proposal to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on a new road bridge across the Forth?

Tom Brake: The point that I have made about road building is that the Secretary of State has allowed the Department for Transport road-building programme to swell by an extra 1 billion and has not been successful in keeping those costs under control. We favour keeping the costs under control.
	Objective three is balancing the need to travel with the need to improve quality of life by improving safety and respect for the environment. Some solid progress has been made on the number of people killed or seriously injured in road accidents. There are, however, some areas in which further attention is needed. Those include child deaths on the road. The number of serious injuries has fallen significantly, but the number of deaths is not falling at the same rate. We are also seeing an increase in the numbers killed or seriously injured while riding two-wheeled motor vehicles.
	I do have time to address the issue of air quality in detail. However, the Government's own performance report acknowledges that only four out of seven of the targets in that area will be met. I hope that the Government will not seek to achieve the remaining targets by revising the methodology to make it easier to achieve them. I understand that the Government intend to issue a revised methodology at some pointI thought it would be last month, but perhaps it will be this monthfor measuring the air quality around Heathrow. It will be interesting to see whether the outcome will be to make it easier to meet the air quality standards for the area around Heathrow and so enable the third runway to go ahead.
	I hope that the Government will demonstrate more joined-up government on greenhouse gas emissions. The public squabble between the Departments for Trade and Industry and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about how to achieve the target and how challenging it should be is not helpful in dealing with what the Prime Minister described as one of our most significant problems.

Nick Hurd: The hon. Gentleman acknowledged the problem of congestion, but although I have listened carefully to his speech I have not heard a Lib Dem solution. Will he clarify whether he supports the Government in their move towards a national road pricing scheme at an estimated cost of between 14 billion and 60 billion on a revenue-neutral basis? The lesson from London is that to change motorists' behaviour requires a strong price signal. Does not the evidence undermine the logic of a revenue-neutral approach and throw into question the wisdom of spending several billion pounds on it?

Tom Brake: I am happy to clarify our position. We are on record as supporting road-user pricing and saying that, for it to work, to be acceptable or palatable to the public, it must be revenue-neutral. That would mean getting rid of petrol duty and vehicle excise duty, otherwise the policy would be unsaleable to the public. If we want people to buy into a scheme of such size and complexity, we shall have to offer them that carrot.
	The Secretary of State challenged figures supplied by his Department that stated that, taking into account inflation, VAT and optimism bias, there has been an underestimate for road-building schemes before 2003 of about 1 billion. He should have got that situation under control but he has failed to do so. We have asked the National Audit Office to investigate why there has been such a failure to address those underestimates and the significant cost increases for road-building schemes.
	Several Members asked about Liberal Democrat transport policies. Our first priority will be to ensure that transport is fairer. A significant number of people still do not have access to cars, including the young, many senior citizens and people on low incomes. They are thus denied access to services or find it difficult to reach them. Unfortunately, many other Government policies demonstrate a lack of joined-up government. For example, post office closures mean that people with no access to a car find it much harder to use those valuable services.

Michael Wills: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the Government's support for concessionary travel? For example, in my constituency, Swindon borough council has benefited from nearly 1 million to make it available for precisely the groups that he wants to help.

Tom Brake: I am very aware of the Government's concessionary fares scheme and I welcome it. My only concern is that local authorities consider that it is severely underfunded and that the 350 million allocated will not cover the costs. Some local authorities are having to make adjustments to fares for existing passengers to try to accommodate the extra costs that will arise due to concessionary fares.

Paul Rowen: Is my hon. Friend aware that Tyne and Wear passenger transport authority faces a shortfall of 7.4 million as a result of the introduction of concessionary fares? The PTA will be forced to cut the very bus services that the scheme was supposed to encourage people to use.

Tom Brake: I thank my hon. Friend for that useful intervention. I hope that the Secretary of State is listening carefully and will respond positively to Tyne and Wear's approaches on that front.

Jim Cousins: May I throw some light on that point? Yesterday, the Government announced additional and substantial support for Tyne and Wear, which means that free travel will be extended to the Tyne and Wear metro system. The director general of the passenger transport executive described the figures that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) has just cited as crude, so will the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) advise his Liberal Democrat friends in Tyne and Wear not to support premature cuts in the bus services while we are working through the issue?

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. If he is right that additional funds have been provided to allow the metro service to be incorporated, that is a positive development.
	We must help people who do not have access to cars. Fairness in transport must be a priority, and that involves enhancing passenger safety. I understand that a report will be published tomorrow that highlights the fact that the state of many of our stations is so poor that that, in itself, pushes people away from rail services, thus exacerbating the lack of accessibility to many train services. We need to grow the bus network. A number of hon. Members alluded to the fact that bus deregulation is an issue outside London, because bus companies can stop and start their services and threaten to withdraw bus services if they do not receive subsidy for a service that had been run previously by the private company. Light rail systems should be promoted, as they have a key role to play in many parts of the country in providing accessible transport, particularly for people with disabilities.

Andrew Gwynne: The hon. Gentleman briefly mentions the need to improve bus services. Is he aware that, in my part of Greater Manchester, the Government have made available to Stockport and Tameside councils very great amounts of public money for the south-east Manchester multi-modal study, which is having a major impact, not least with the implementation of quality bus corridors?

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am here not to say that everything that the Government have done is negative, but to congratulate them where appropriateI have done so two or three times, as I am sure Hansard will confirmand to highlight some failings in Government policy.
	The second issue that the Government need to address is ensuring that transport policy is greener. The Government's lack of action on aviation policy is certainly regrettable. They have simply pushed all responsibility for tackling the environmental problems associated with aviation to a future EU emissions trading scheme, which may never happen. The Government could have taken action now and supported our calls to halt any growth in airports and runways in the south-east until the environmental issueswhether the climate change, pollution or congestion implicationsassociated with aviation are addressed.

David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman at least give the Secretary of State for Transport credit for his announcement on the requirement to have stringent noise controls at airports? Does the hon. Gentleman welcome the fact that East Midlands airport, which is in my constituency, will publish its airport master plana further Government initiativevery soon indeed? The community can use those documents to try to work their way through the problems that exist.

Tom Brake: I do indeed welcome the measures that the Government have taken. No doubt, East Midlands airport's representatives will mention those issues to me when I visit them tomorrow to listen to the noise. As the airport is in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, may I warn him that I will be visiting for legitimate purposes tomorrow evening?
	Our final priority is to make spending on transport projects more accountable. Very large sums of money are now being distributed and priorities are being identified regionally, where democratic control is not great. As other hon. Members have said, we are concerned about the ability of local communities to influence the bus services provided in their areas. All that needs to be underpinned by paying attention to value for money, which is why my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the London assembly are putting forward a proposal to replace the tram scheme for London with a trolleybus scheme that could do the same job for about a third of the price.
	We need to ensure that the Government invest for the long term, so we need to make more use of bonds. Several hon. Members referred positively to what the Mayor has achieved in London. He thought that bonds were the appropriate way to address investment in the London underground. Unfortunately, the Government did not allow him to go down that route, but we would have supported it.
	The Government quietly torpedoed the 10-year transport plan years ago.

John Pugh: The Government might have torpedoed the national 10-year plan, but they have quietly introduced regional 10-year plans that commit the regions to significant expenditure with little democratic accountability. We thus have a new set of plans that are diverse and unrepresentative.

Tom Brake: That is why we would ensure that people responsible for taking decisions on transport priorities are democratically accountable, which they are not at present.
	After torpedoing the 10-year plan, the Government produced a revised plan in July 2004 called The Future of Transport, but that is already taking on water. Bus use outside London has declined by 7 per cent., although it is an objective that bus use will increase in every region by 2010. The Government claim that their efficiency target has been met, yet road building projects overrun by more than 1.5 billion. While they might hit their targets on punctuality and reliability for rail, the law of unintended consequences means that train overcrowding has rocketed since 1997 with 25,000 passengers travelling to and from London each day on officially overcrowded trains. An objective analysis shows that the Government's progress on their self-imposed targets has been patchy. Delivery has been poor and targets have been discarded, downgraded, or have simply disappeared. Delivery lags behind rhetoric and anyone who travels on our roads, railways or buses knows it.
	Liberal Democrats think that the Secretary of State is tired. He longs for a higher-profile post. It is time to put him out of his misery and appoint a Secretary of State who will really get to grips with the tragedy that is our transport system.

Several hon. Members: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind right hon. and hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a time limit of 10 minutes on Back-Bench speeches? However, they will see that we are under time pressure, so I am sure that they are capable of doing the arithmetic for themselves.

Phyllis Starkey: I will come to the aid of the Secretary of State because I wish to thank him warmly for the funding that we have received in Milton Keynes. Milton Keynes council, which is, of course, unfortunately controlled by the Liberal Democrats, has received more than 3 million from the Government for its local transport capital expenditure every single year since 2001. For the most part, it has been spent reasonably well. The money that has been spent on supporting public transport, bus priority measures and improving the quality of bus   networks is starting to improve the lamentable bus transport system in Milton Keynes.
	I should mention that a key aspect of continuing to improve bus transport in Milton Keynes, as in other places, is not in the gift of the Department for Transport because it is related to the planning of future housing. We are all grappling with the way in which we can plan future housing growth in Milton Keynes so that we can try to make the expanded city more public transport-friendly than it is at present.
	Primarily, I want to talk about the rail system in Milton Keynes. We are on the west coast main line. My constituency contains four rail stations, three of which are on the west coast main line; Wolverton, Milton Keynes Central and Bletchley. Milton Keynes as a whole has suffered from the incredibly lengthy delays to the modernisation of the west coast main line. I am old enough to recall that that was first planned before the privatisation of the railways. The Tory Government did not undertake the modernisation because they thought that as the railways were going to be privatised, the private rail companies could do it, which, of course, they did not. This Government finally delivered the modernisation, although because such a huge amount of time had passed, they had to examine the plans again, redo the costings and rescale the work. For my constituents and everybody else up and down the west coast main line, they have delivered a rail service that is considerably more reliable and has a vastly increased capacity.
	However, although the capacity of the west coast main line has increased, passenger and freight usage has also increased. The key issue for my constituents, of which all members of the Front-Bench team will be well aware, because I have raised it endlessly in the House, is the conflict between long-distance rail passengers and commuter rail passengers. This is to a certain extent a zero-sum game; whatever the capacity of the rail system, it is finite at any one time.
	There is an understandable desire among passengers from the north of England and Scotland for trains travelling down the west coast main line through Milton Keynes not to stop terribly often, because every time they do so it increases the journey time. In addition, if a train from the north which is already about 90 per cent. full stops at Milton Keynes during a peak time, it is likely that more people than the few remaining available places will try to get on.
	Therefore, a balance must be struck between the needs of long-distance travellers and those of the very large number of commutersabout 20,000 a daywhose journeys are packed into a very small time and who want to be able to travel reliably, reasonably comfortably and in a short time into London and out again. There are also commuters who come into Milton Keynes from London and the north, and some people from Milton Keynes who commute northwards, although in much smaller numbers.
	There was a problem; my constituents would have liked every Virgin Pendolino train to London to have stopped in Milton Keynes and, preferably, all the people on it to have got off to make space, so that they could have enjoyed a fast journey in peak time. The Pendolinos are about 10 to 15 minutes faster than the Silverlink trains, which are the main commuter trains.

John Pugh: I assure the hon. Lady that trains from the north are never 90 per cent. full because half the train is first class. The standard class section is often 120 or 130 per cent. full, but the train as a whole is never 90 per cent. full.

Phyllis Starkey: I accept that I might have exaggerated slightly, but the general point remains.
	As soon as it became evident to my constituents that there would be a problem with the timetable that was due to be introduced in 2004, that they would no longer be able to get on quite so many fast Pendolino trains and that they would have to rely on Silverlink trains instead, I raised the issue repeatedly with the Secretary of State, and I am incredibly pleased that he responded very positively. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), was able to join me on Milton Keynes Central station a couple of months ago to celebrate the fact that the scheme for providing an extra platform is being funded by this Government to the tune of 24 million from the community infrastructure fund; a very large slice of a national fund of only about 200 million, for which I am immensely grateful.
	Network Rail is providing another 85 million and it has been agreed with Milton Keynes council that a further 6 million would come from section 106 contributions. The platform is timetabled to be built for 2008; as Members will be aware, such a major scheme has to be fitted in with all the other things planned on the railway. It will provide a turn-back facility at Milton Keynes, enormously increase capacity at Milton Keynes Central and improve the service for my constituents.
	At this point I want to get on the record, so that the Secretary of State can give this due attention, the fact that the excellent Milton Keynes and Bletchley Rail Users Group, which I was instrumental in starting, has set out what it is hoping will be delivered in the 2008 timetable, which is even now being discussed, so that users can benefit from this Government's munificence in planning such extra works.
	The group would like at least three non-stop trains an hour in the evening peak between London and Milton Keynes; two fast trains an hour to Birmingham in the morning and evening peaks; a half-hourly fast service between Bletchley and London in the morning and evening peaks; and a northbound hourly service to Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow with connections to intermediate stations to allow effective business travel to and from Milton Keynes. The group has written directly to the Department for Transport, whose Ministers have heard my speech, so I am sure that they will give those requests due consideration.
	The people of Milton Keynes are extremely grateful for the funding that they have received. They are grateful, too, for the funding that will be used to upgrade Wolverton station as part of the regeneration of Wolverton. They are grateful for the additional investment from the private sector in Bletchley station to improve the service. Every hon. Member would want even more to be spent on transport, particularly transport schemes in their own constituency. We all know perfectly well, however, that public spending is always a balance of priorities; the more that is spent on one service the less that is spent on another, or the more that has to be raised from general taxation.
	I am grateful for the funding that my constituents have received from the Government transport strategy. The Government have delivered a great deal more than the last Government or, frankly, any Tory Government ever would.

John Redwood: The Secretary of State made a sensible change to the Government's approach to transport when he began his difficult job. His predecessor thought that it was possible to shift a large number of people off the road on to the train to solve environmental and capacity problems. The Secretary of State quickly realised that we are short of capacity of all kinds. He realised that the fundamental transport problem facing the country is insufficient capacity on the roads and railways to deal with the current level of economic activity. That problem will become much more acute in the years ahead, assuming reasonable growth in the economy.
	To give some figures, if we grow at European levels of only 2 per cent. per annumit is feared that we will go down to such levelswe must make capacity available for a two-thirds increase in the journey miles travelled in the next 20 years. If we return to Anglosphere levels of achievement and secure 3 per cent. growth, or if we return to our old trend rate of 2.5 per cent., there will be an increase of between 75 per cent. and 100 per cent. in the number of miles travelled by people as all those extra goods are taken to market and extra services are provided, and as more people travel to work and go about their business spending their extra leisure pounds. They will want access to facilities, so they will need more transport.
	The Secretary of State will agree that we want to live in a vibrant and growing economy, which naturally means more transport. I therefore find the Liberal Democrats' attitude absurd. They presumably want to live in a prosperous country, but they say that we cannot make more capacity available in transport alone. They rightly argue that we have to make more hospitals available for the ill, and that we have to make more schools available for children. They believe that we cannot make more transport capacity available, but that would mean that we would not have a growing vibrant economy and people would not be able to travel to school, hospital or work. How on earth do they think that we can manage if we do not tackle the underlying capacity problem?
	The Secretary of State inherited a grand scheme, with a total spend of 180 billion consisting of a mixture of public and private funds. I remember criticising the scheme when it was announced for two main reasons. First, the modal shift could obviously not be achieved on the scale that the right hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mr. Byers), the then Secretary of State, imagined. The new Secretary of State has recognised that. Secondly, I did not think that 180 billion was nearly enough expenditure over a 10-year period to tackle our serious capacity problems. I want much more to be spent, but we can fund that increase by raising private capital. We do not need to increase the public component.
	By way of contrast to the 180 billion so-called transport strategy, outside that document was all the spending that individuals and companies are undertaking on motor vehicles. People are buying cars, vans, lorries by the thousands every month and that, I compute, probably adds up to more than 180 billion over the 10-year period that people will spend on new vehicles, leaving aside the trade in second-hand vehicles. So we know that there is plenty of money available for transport. People must spend that money. It is often their only way of getting around, of getting goods to market or of getting to work on time, particularly for those who work unsocial hours, so people make that money available.
	I want the Government to provide more opportunities for private money to be made available to solve the capacity problem. I am a great fan of a recent scheme which was begun under the Conservatives and was finished under the Labour Government; a bi-partisan effort. I refer to the toll motorway to the north of Birmingham. It is a very good scheme. It provides flexible tolls so that motorists pay more if they travel at a popular time of the day or night, and less if they travel at a less popular time. Perhaps the tolls need to be made more flexible to get maximum capacity use. I am sure that will happen, as there is an economic incentive for it. I would like to see the Government come up with opportunities for the private sector to start tackling the big capacity problems on our road network through that kind of private finance for new facilities on our roads.
	I see from the document that the Secretary of State has made a number of changes, compared with the original 10-year plan. Some of his changes have been sensible. He is right that some of the tram and mass transit systems that were proposed do not offer good value for money, and some of them could be dangerous. If people wish to introduce a tramway system into a busy and congested city or town centre on existing roads, it can be extremely dangerous. That, after all, is why the original trams and trolleybuses were taken out some years ago, because there were conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists and other road users, and there were some very bad accidents.

Lee Scott: Does my right hon. Friend agree that for people such as my constituents, who must endure travelling on overcrowded underground trains, the fact that they are penalised if they wish to pay with a strange old commodity called cash is not an encouragement to get them out of their cars and on to trains? There is a double whammy. If they use their cars, they are penalised by congestion charging; if they do not, they are penalised by not being able to travel comfortably to their destination.

John Redwood: I agree with my hon. Friend. His constituents often suffer from an inadequate underground system. It is another example of infrastructure in this country that is stretched to breaking, not nearly big enough and not modern enough for current uses. The entire underground should be air conditioned. We need two or three new underground lines, as a minimum. We need to improve the reliability of the existing lines. That all takes money.
	I remember proposing some years ago in the House a privatisation scheme for the underground, the people's tube, which would have given everybody shares in the tube free and would have raised a lot of money from outside to build the two new lines that I thought then were the minimum that we needed, so that we could have a more modern underground. The Government decided on a different system, not one that I think was very felicitous, but we are where we are.
	I hope the Secretary of State can work with his advisers and with those involved in the underground to see how we can get at least a couple of new lines on the underground to start providing that extra capacity, and how we can start to have full air conditioning and more modern trains so that when we have hot periods in the summerthe Government seem to think we will have more hot periods in the summerpeople will be able to cope.

Clive Efford: I accept that we will always want improvements in infrastructure and rolling stock, but as the right hon. Gentleman is speaking critically about the problems of transport in London, may I draw his attention to the annual London survey, which shows that 80 per cent. of London's transport users are satisfied with London's transport system, compared with previous surveys, which showed a much lower number of people who were satisfied? That shows a trend among people in London towards appreciating the improvement that have been made in our transport system, to the point where it has overtaken London's nightlife

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions must be brief. That is a very lengthy intervention.

John Redwood: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for conserving my time, which is precious to me, if not to the hon. Gentleman. As a part-time Londoner, I do not live in such a happy world as that that he thinks 80 per cent. of the public inhabit; perhaps I belong to the other 20 per cent., but other, more accurate surveys agree with my view.
	There is room for enormous improvement. We need increased capacity on the tube, better tube trains and a Secretary of State who, now that he has partially privatised the tube system, raises as much money as possible from the private sector and ensures that it is spent as efficiently as possible to allow us better to husband our resources.
	People are prepared to spend a lot of money on transport, but they want something good for their money. They must spend enormous sums of money if they rely on railway transport, and we have heard many stories of people paying a lot of money for tickets and not even getting a seat, which is not only uncomfortable, but unsafe. Trains are intrinsically unsafe, because if they decelerate sharply, stop sharply or come off the tracks, people can be badly injured by being thrown around; a person who has a seat is much less likely to be injured than someone who does not.
	One does not have the opportunity to wear a seat belt on a train, which would make trains much safer, whereas seat belts are mandatory in cars, where the risk is lower, because cars have fewer hard surfaces and dangerous interior features than trains. We must examine safety on trains. On fast trains, it is wrong that people do not get a guaranteed seat and do not have the option of wearing a seat belt in order to travel more safely.
	The position on private investment could be much stronger. In Wokingham, there is a perfectly good scheme that would allow us to have a new station at no cost to the taxpayer, because if the underused station property were redeveloped, the developer gain would pay for the new station. Many of my constituents, the local council and I want to see that scheme happen, but it has sat in the pending tray for four or five years as the railway industry has experienced an enormous series of reorganisations under this Government.
	The industry should get its act together on property and realise that there is an enormous resource in under-utilised or badly used property in the railway estate. Councils would be happy to work with local railway management to provide suitable planning permission for such sites to release money for the improvement and redevelopment of public facilities. Why is it that so many stations do not have the most obvious facilities these days? Why has space not been rented out so that people can buy food when they return home late in the evening and need something to eat? Why is there nowhere to get a coffee and a newspaper in the morning? A surprising number of stations lack the most obvious commercial facilities, which represents a money-making opportunity for the railway. If only the railway had commercial flair and spent less time arguing about 10-year strategic plans and dealing with Government bureaucrats and more time thinking about what its customers need and how it can raise the money commercially to provide it.
	When the Government extend their plan to 2015, they should not only tell us that we need more capacity of all kinds, but come up with the policies to deliver increased capacity of more kinds. They should give the go ahead for new road routes, because the private capital will be there, if people are allowed to charge a toll. If they go over to comprehensive road pricing, the whole network could be expanded and maintained at private expense, because the toll money could be recycled. Knowing this Government, they would still make a profit out of the transaction, given the taxes that they would be likely to impose.
	Will the Government examine rail capacity in London and elsewhere and consider how one or two big schemes could be privately financed and add to the capacity of the railway network? Will they examine how the railway industry can start to develop and redevelop its surplus property outside London to provide a stream of income into the railway to provide more modern facilities? And will they examine how the railway industry can join the modern world when it comes to safety standards and additional facilities at our stations?

Paul Truswell: We can only view with astonishment the brass neck of the Conservatives in tabling this motion. They did irreparable damage to public transport. They are a bit like arsonists who, having started a major conflagration, sit on the sidelines and complain that the fire service is not putting it out quickly enough. I do, however, have some reservations about how quickly the Government's fire service is putting out the conflagration. I regret that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), are no longer present, and apologise to my other Front-Bench colleagues, who may have heard these comments before.
	Since the Conservatives deregulated bus services, quality and standards have fallen dramatically, fares have risen by almost 50 per cent. in real terms, and the number of passengers has fallen by more than a third in my area, West Yorkshire. That represents about 100 million passenger journeys. Fares have gone through the roof. In the period from April 2004 to June 2005, Firstbus in Leeds increased off-peak fares by 27 per cent. and peak fares by 19 per cent. Bus operators' own figures illustrate that operating costs during that period rose by only about 9 per cent. In January, fares went up yet again.
	Under deregulation, bus operators can make profits while providing very poor services. They can pick and choose where they run services. Services are chopped and changed, missing or late. It is no wonder that passengers have deserted bus services in such numbers.

Mark Lazarowicz: We heard earlier about the different story in London. There is also a different story in Edinburgh, where bus use has gone up and prices are still low. Is it perhaps no coincidence that in London we still have a degree of regulation of bus services and in Edinburgh we still have community ownership of the local bus service?

Paul Truswell: I am sure that there is no coincidence whatsoever. Obviously, quality contracts have operated in London because services were never deregulated. I understand that last year patronage in London went up by about 10 per cent., while in the rest of the country overall it went down by 3 per cent.
	Passenger transport executives such as Metro in my area are able to influence directly only 20 per cent. of the network that they provide through tendered services. In effect, there is little competition for tenders, so it is difficult to test whether best value is being obtained. That is diametrically opposed to the result that was intended by opening up the market.
	Quality bus partnerships are the Government's preferred way forward in tackling the dreadful legacy inherited from the previous Government.

Peter Bone: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Truswell: I am tempted not to, because the hon. Gentleman has not been sitting in the Chamber for quite as long as many of us. I apologise for that.
	Partnership works where there are ready profits to be made by the private sector, but it does not meet the challenge of the social needs in many of the communities that we represent. I have no problem with partnership where it works, especially with operators who are prepared to take a long-term view instead of a profit-making view. But sometimesI say this with all due respect to my Front-Bench colleagueswe have to put power in the hands of passengers and communities, not in the hands of the profit-maker. That is why I support quality bus contracts.
	I was mildly heartened by what the Secretary of State said last week, and again here today, about the fact that he may be considering using quality contracts. However, I am disappointed that they come with strings attached and that they are regarded as the sweet coating on the bitter pill of introducing road charging. We ought to go the extra mile and say that quality contracts are a useful tool in promoting bus use.
	I want to say a few words about my constituency. I am worried that the A65 Kirkstall road quality bus initiative seems to have gone into the ether, because that measure would have served my constituents very well.
	Rail users in my constituency, like many others throughout the country, have been ill served by privatisation. However, under the Government, three stations in my constituency have been refurbished. A 250 million refurbishment has taken place at Leeds city station, enabling it to develop greater capacity for local routes.
	A rail passenger partnership grant has allowed most of the rolling stock on the Airedale and Wharfedale line to be replaced with brand new, air conditioned, class 333 trains. They replaced the antediluvian, 40-year-old, slam-door cast-offs from the south-east commuter belt that we inherited under the previous Government. We cannot take lessons from the Conservative party about investment in rail.
	Between 1994 and now, rail use in West Yorkshire increased from 11.5 million to 21 million passengers. There is a price to pay for that. The Select Committee on Transport identified overcrowding in West Yorkshire as being worse than in the south-east, which may surprise some London-centric Members. The Harrogate line, which goes through Horsforth in my constituency, and the Calder Vale line through New Pudsey are two of the most overcrowded routes in West Yorkshire at peak times.
	Despite the recent renewal of rolling stock, capacity on the Wharfedale line, too, approaches saturation point at peak times. It is under pressure from new development, especially housing development. The Department for Transport is currently funding eight carriages up to 2007 on the Wharfedale line. It is essential that the rolling stock is retained and that we do not move backwards by having less capacity through the removal of that rolling stock.
	The Northern Rail franchise is under review. I submit to our Front-Bench colleagues that that must reflect not only current demand and pressure on services but the potential for carrying tens of thousands more passengers if we increase capacity and perhaps accompany that with park-and-ride schemes. I contend that, in West Yorkshire, we would get more passengers per pound of investment than almost anywhere else in the country.
	West Yorkshire Metro has a blueprint for increasing patronage by more than 50 per cent. in the next 10 years with what I regardI hope that Ministers agreeas a relatively modest investment of between 5 million and 6 million a year.
	Although we should not take lessons from Conservative Members about public transport, I hope that my hon. Friends accept that genuine concerns need to be tackled if we are to emerge from the mire that we inherited from the Conservative party.

Paul Rowen: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) for initiating the debate and for some of his comments, although, like other hon. Members, I await the Conservative policy with bated breath.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) covered several points on Conservative and Labour transport policies as well as our Liberal Democrat alternatives. I want to concentrate on public transport, especially light rail, buses and the railways.
	The 10-year plan was announced in 2000, although it was modified in 2002. It made several specific commitments. They included: 25 light rail schemes and 100 per cent. increase in passengers on light rail; a 10 per cent. increase in the number of passengers using buses, with newer and more reliable bus services; and more cities and towns with park and ride schemes. The White Paper combined figures to make a 12 per cent. increase overall. That has not happened.
	We were told that the number of passengers using the railways would increase by 50 per cent., with more modern trains and improved commuter services in London and other cities, and that rail freight would increase by 80 per cent. Although improvements and investment have occurredmy party will not deny thatthey have been too slow, too late and do not fulfil the commitments in the 10-year plan.
	Only two new light rail schemes have been completed and one more has been agreed. Passenger numbers have not increased by the projected 50 per cent. but by only 28 per cent. The Government have scrapped light rail schemes in Leeds, Hampshire and Merseyside. Earlier, the Secretary of State claimed that that was due to increasing cost, yet he failed to answer my point that it is okay for road schemes to overspendindeed, he is prepared to accommodate thatbut not for light rail to do so. Only the Manchester Metrolink extension is still on the shelf. That project has sat on the Secretary of State's desk since July 2004, when public pressure forced him to reinstate the scheme. Meanwhile, services on the Rochdale-Oldham loop line continue to decline, with 30-year-old Pacer trains and track that cannot cope when a few leaves fall. We are entitled to hear from the Minister today when the Manchester Metrolink extension is to go forward.

Mark Hunter: Does my hon. Friend agree that, until the Government fulfil their promise on the Metrolink big bang expansion in Greater Manchester, his constituents and mineand those of many other Members in the regionwill continue to struggle with enormous congestion problems? Only that investment in the Metrolink expansion will help to persuade car users seriously to consider public transport as an alternative.

Paul Rowen: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The Secretary of State said that our area would receive that investment, but unless or until it is delivered he will not get any support for traffic congestion charging. The Government said in their 10-year plan that other countries had more light rail schemes than the UK, but recent Government decisions have served only to make our position even worse, compared with other cities and towns in Europe.
	The Government also made a pledge to increase bus use by 10 per cent. It is true that, if we include services in London, the 10 per cent. target has been achieved. However, outside London there has been a 7 per cent. fall in bus use. At the same time, bus fares have increased by 24 per cent., compared with a retail prices index increase of only 11 per cent. During the same period, the number of vehicle kilometres has fallen by 13 per cent. in metropolitan areas and by 4 per cent. in other areas of England. People are paying exorbitantly high fares for a much poorer service under this Government. I note that the Secretary of State did not cover buses in any great detail in his speech.

John Redwood: Is the hon. Gentleman against the people in his constituency getting a bit richer and buying cars? He does not seem to understand that a lot of people have been buying cars and want to use them.

Paul Rowen: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point of view, but for many people buses are the only the service available, and, in many areas, that service is exorbitant in cost and declining in frequency.
	A recent report produced by the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission entitled Delivery chain analysis for bus services in England makes a telling observation that supports a point made earlier by the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell). It states:
	Regulation is both tightly managed and effective inside London but there is scope to make the unregulated market outside London work better.

John Pugh: Is my hon. Friend aware that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) avoided altogether using the word environment in his intervention? Our preference for public transport is based on the fact that it does not cause the same environmental damage as private transport.

Paul Rowen: Yes, and it was the right hon. Gentleman's Government who deregulated the buses. It is a simple fact that bus services outside London are controlled by five major bus companies, which together control two thirds of the bus market in this country. Local authorities and passenger transport executives have control of only 20 per cent. of the total bus market. In Rochdale and neighbouring Oldham, the bus operator, First, has a virtual monopoly, controlling 70 per cent. and 80 per cent. of all bus services respectively. The result of that monopoly is cancelled services, late-running services, high bus fares and a high degree of passenger dissatisfaction.

Mark Lazarowicz: I mentioned the position in Edinburgh, which I would like the hon. Gentleman to visit some time to see what can be done with a different form of local bus company ownership. Does he agree that there is a strong case for the competition authorities conducting a serious investigation into the way in which the bus market in this country has developed and is operated?

Paul Rowen: I shall visit Edinburgh tomorrow on my way to the Dunfermline by-election. My next point was going to be that, at the very least, the Minister needs to refer the monopolies that exist at local authority level to the Office of Fair Trading. It is obvious that those bus monopolies are making disproportionate profits compared with the profits made on bus services in London. For example, in the metropolitan areas, an 18 per cent. return is being made on bus services, compared with only 8 per cent. inside London. The way forward must be targeted regulation, which, as the Minister responsible informed me in a written answer, the Government have no intention of introducing. Without it, however, I fear that bus usage will continue to decline and roads will become even more congested.
	Substantial investment has been made in railways, although, again, because of the complex structure of the rail industry, it has not led to the planned improvements. The reality is that we were supposed to get a 50 per cent. increase in passenger journeys. The figure is now 20-odd per cent., but the report said that without further increases in capacity, that 50 per cent. increase would not be achieved. I look forward to hearing what proposals the Minister will make to deal with the Manchester or Birmingham bottlenecks. Without such action, commuter services cannot be improved further.
	We also need to consider the age of the rolling stock. I was informed in a written answer last week that, outside London and the south-east, there are no plans to upgrade and improve rail network services. For example, Northern Rail's rolling stock, which covers a vast area from the Scottish borders down to the midlands, has an average age of 17.1 years. No allowance has been made in the 10-year plan to improve and upgrade that rolling stock. That can only result in more unreliable, more uncomfortable and more crowded services for rail commuters.
	Funding for the railways needs to be examined properly, particularly the question of why so much money is being paid to rolling stock leasing companies, and why franchises have been set at limits below 10 years, contrary to the original plan, which envisaged a 10 to 20-year lead-in, which would have allowed more investment in new rolling stock.
	I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. Transport is important for all of us. The wealth and future development of the country depend on it. Halfway through the 10-year plan, we have a mixed picture. There has been some improvement, but not enough has been done. The Government can and must do better.

Mark Lazarowicz: In his closing remarks, the Secretary of State urged us to look to the future in terms of what can be done to improve further the transport system. In the time available, I want to highlight one specific area to which I hope the Government will look for the future. I want to urge the Government to give an early commitment to the development of high-speed rail in the UK.
	In his attack on the Government, the Opposition's transport spokesman at least referred grudgingly to the fact that the west coast main line had been upgraded. That upgrading is already showing benefits in terms of attracting passengers to rail and away from road and air travel. That shows what more could be achieved if we moved forward with the development of proper high-speed rail links in the UK. The Government's own advisory bodies have reported on a number of occasions that:
	High-speed lines are essential if we are to deal with capacity constraints that are building up on our intercity network
	and
	The case for construction of a high-speed line is now much greater than it was 20 years ago, when there was more . . . capacity on the conventional network.
	I was delighted when, a few weeks ago, the Institution of Civil Engineers published a report on the possibility of a dedicated high-speed line for the United Kingdom. That reflects the growing realisation that an idea that would have been regarded as bonkers a few years ago is gaining acceptability among policy makers, who recognise that it has now reached its time. The Government's adviser, Lord Eddington, has indicated that he will adopt that approach when he produces his report at the end of the year. I do not have time to describe all the advantages of high-speed rail, but it can offer shorter travel times for passengers, strengthen the move away from dependence on the road network and, in particular, from short-haul air travel, and ensure that the north of England, the midlands and Scotland can enjoy the economic prosperity that will result from more and better links to the continent of Europe through full development of the high-speed channel tunnel rail link.
	I do not expect the Government to commit themselves to a high-speed rail line today, but I stress that there is strong support for it in the House. I hope that if Lord Eddington recommends it, the Secretary of State will choose to be bold, for we are at our best when we are at our boldest. I hope that he will ensure that we in the United Kingdomnot just in the south-east, and not just for the purposes of our links with the continent of Europe, but throughout the countrycan begin to enjoy the type of high-speed rail network that our European friends and neighbours regard as the norm. It is time that we joined the 21st century in that regard, as well as in the context of the other initiatives and projects that the Government have introduced at both local and national level.

Stephen Hammond: This has been a strategically important debate, featuring interesting contributions from a number of Members.
	Opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) got to the heart of what we were askingif the Government are spending so much money, where is it going and why are they not delivering on their 10-year plan? The fundamental failure of the plan lies in the fact that it announced much and promised much, but had no short-term or long-term context in relation to our country's economic needs or, indeed, its need for a sustainable environment. The Secretary of State clearly disagrees with me because he described it as a piece of strategic thinking. It was not his piece of strategic thinking, though; it was that of the Deputy Prime Minister, and given that relatively inauspicious start it was probably destined to fail.
	In his foreword to the document dealing with the 10-year plan, the Deputy Prime Minister wrote that he was
	developing an integrated transport policy to tackle the problems of congestion and pollution.
	On congestion, the facts are that the number of motor vehicles registered has risen from 27 million to 32 million. The number of passenger kilometres travelled has risen from 730 billion to 797 billion, which is almost entirely due to extra car miles, as nationally bus usage is down by 7 per cent. Investment in road infrastructure is now 4.2 billion, but under the Conservatives it reached 6.2 billion. If I quote the Government's figures correctly, investment in our trunk road systemmentioned by several Members todayreached its 1993 level only this year. As we have all agreed, expenditure on the rail infrastructure is now three times higher in real terms, but the question that we have asked several times without receiving a proper answer is, Where is all that investment going?
	The all-operators public performance measure, which was just under 90 per cent. in 199798, is now only about 85 per cent. The train operating companies expect capacity to grow by about 2 per cent. between now and 2014, but usage is expected to grow by 38 per cent.

John Redwood: Will my hon. Friend confirm that if the Government did hit their target of a 50 per cent. increase in railway passengers over the 10-year period, that would tackle only one year's worth of growth in the total demand for travel?

Stephen Hammond: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. The paper that I read on this issue confirms what he says. The reality is that capacity seems not to be a word in this Government's lexicon. The capacity issues that the transport system needs to address are not being addressed.
	The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, gave a very long speech.

John Redwood: Too long.

Stephen Hammond: Some might agree.
	The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington regaled us with several of his supposedly spiked press releases, but in doing so he merely proved to the House why they have remained unused by the Press Gallery.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) described the economic context in which we need to consider our country's infrastructure requirements and what we need to do to ensure a vibrant 21st-century economy. He rightly said that modal shift will not meet our needs and that we will need to achieve capacity increases in both rail and road. He also rightly saidthe Secretary of State was out of the Chamber at the timethat we need to continue to use, and to expand the use of, private-sector finance to ensure that our economy's capacity requirements are met. He raised several interesting points relating to safety, and he finished by urging that maximum commercial use be made of railway property. Every Member of this House will surely agree with that.
	The Deputy Prime Minister said in the introduction to Transport 2010 that the plan will deliver the scale of resources required to put integrated transport into practice. Everybody in the House agrees that more is being spent. The Secretary of State recited in his opening contribution what my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell had already mentioned: a list of schemes that have been completed. What the Secretary of State failed to do, and which we asked him to do, was to explain why, if so much money is being spent, so many schemes have been stopped or scrapped, and why so much of Transport 2010 is not going to be delivered. If Members care to do so, they can hear about the detail of one such scheme in today's forthcoming Adjournment debate. The Deputy Prime Minister also said that he will put in place an integrated . . . transport system. It is certainly true that at the moment trains and cycles, trains and buses, and freight movement from ports by rail and road are not integrated. The short answer is that Transport 2010 has not delivered an integrated transport policy.
	As everyone has said today, moving freight by rail is a good idea. However, I wonder whether, when we recite that slogan, we consider all the economic, environmental and sustainable community issues that it raises. If he has not already done so, the Minister might care to acquaint himself with the Green N8 scheme, which I believe the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is pushing. It involves moving aggregates by rail freight, but the only trouble is that concrete output is moved by road through our communities and the crowded and congested roads of north London. So in reciting these slogans, we should also be clear about what they mean for local communities.
	There is no integrated transport policy. We have heard today a number of promises, and we have heard about a number of broken promises. The short answer is that the trains are getting more crowded and are still running late, and everybody is paying more for them. Traffic is still jammed and it is taking longer and longer to reach its destination. More cars are registered and everybody is paying more. When the Secretary of State was first in post, he said that he
	had no intention of tearing up the 10 year plan.
	Well, it is not delivering and it will not deliver, so perhaps that is exactly what he should do. Transport 2010 is not addressing the needs of Britain in the 21st centuryit is a failure.
	I commend this motion to the House.

Stephen Ladyman: The Conservatives' thesis today seems to be that the Government have managed the economy so brilliantly well that we are all getting back to work and getting richer, and so we all want to travel more. I do not disagree with them for a second.
	The Opposition also believe that the Government are investing heavily in transport but claim that we are not seeing the benefits. Opposition Members should think about their personal experience for a moment. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, was constructive enough to admit that there have been significant improvementsincluding new rolling stock and increased reliabilityand that people are aware of them.
	I have been a Minister for nearly three years. Not one week has gone by in that time when I have not used inter-city trains to fulfil some ministerial engagement. I have seen for myself that train services are better and more comfortable. An article in the press just this week talked about the improvements on the west coast main line and said that airlines flying to Manchester are starting to think that they are under threat.
	I had to fulfil an engagement today in Newport in Wales. I was able to rely on the trains to get me there and back again, even though I knew that I had to be here for this debate. In 1997, no one would have considered taking the train to Newport without taking the week off work and being accompanied by a team of sherpas. The improvements are there for all to see. For example, slam-door trains have been replaced. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) is one of the shadow transport spokesmen, and he will know

Julian Brazier: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Stephen Ladyman: No, although I will if there is time later. The hon. Gentleman will have experienced those slam-door trains. I used to work for a private company in east Kent. It used to tell people that it chose Kent for a base in the 1950s because of the train service available then. Unfortunately, exactly the same trains were being used by the mid-1990s as were deployed in the 1950s. All those trains are now gone: people can see the improvements and they are aware of the channel tunnel rail links that are starting to be completed

Julian Brazier: Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Ladyman: I am sorry, but I need to make progress. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) talked about the improvements that she and her constituents have seen in west coast main line services.
	If the Opposition's comments about rail were stunning and inaccurate, their remarks about the Government's approach to road schemes were breathtaking. The press release by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) contained incorrect statements about roads that have, in fact, been completed.

Chris Grayling: The Highways Agency website was inaccurate.

Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman says that the Highways Agency website was inaccurate, but we checked that during the debate and found it to be entirely accurate. He needs to have a long talk with his researchers about which old documents they used for his speech.
	I shall give a few examples of why I think that the Opposition's view of our road programme is breathtaking. Between 1990 and 1994, the then Conservative Government announced that a number of road schemes would be scrapped. They included the Greater Manchester western and northern relief road, the Langford turn in Bedfordshire, the Blackwall tunnel interim scheme on the A13, the A31 Stoney Cross junction improvements in Hampshire, the A59 Copster Green bypass in Lancashire, the M1-M62 link road between Wakefield and Kirklees, the western environmental route in the London boroughs of Hammersmith, Fulham and Kensington and Chelsea, and the Exeter northern bypass. All those schemes were cancelled by the Conservatives.
	The previous Conservative Government obviously got the taste for cancelling road schemes, so in 1994 they announced a review. They then cancelled the schemes on the M12 and M606, and the A1 to M1 to Scratchwood link. They also cancelled schemes on the M1, A5, A6, A6/A46I could go on. The list of schemes that the Conservative scrapped in 1994 is very long. There are 49 of them in all and I could use my entire time talking about them.
	Like an addict who had had his first shot of some drug, the Conservatives realised it was rather fun to cancel road schemes, so back they came in 1995 to cancel schemes on the M1, the M5, the M23, the M25 and more. I could go on even longer on this list because there were 77 of them. If that were not bad enough, they came back again in 1996 to scrap schemes on the M1, the M3, the M4, the M5the list goes on and on. They scrapped no fewer than 107 road schemes that year alone. Yet they have the brass neck to tell us we are not committed to road building where it is necessary and important.
	Of the 40 schemes that we identified for the targeted package of improvements, 38 are on target to be delivered by 2010. Two remain challenging. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) himself identified the Stonehenge programme, and I merely ask him whether he would have given the go-ahead to a 500 million tunnel under Stonehenge without looking again at the options. We called a review when we realised it would have been cheaper to move the stones and the mountain they were sitting on.
	The Liberal Democrats were of course able to critique both other parties' transport policies without giving any constructive suggestions of their own. Three leadership candidates are going round the country at the moment with three very different transport proposals. Those of the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) seem to consist of saying that the only transport modality that should be available to any of us is walking around in open-toed sandals. The only transport contribution so far from the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) has been his saying that he will drive a little less often in his classic Jag. The contribution of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) has been to say that no matter how we decide motorists should pay to use the roads in future, they should pay in euros.
	All that hardly adds up to a coherent package. When the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington stands there giving us a list of transport proposals that would cost billions and billions of pounds, yet says that he agrees with the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife about the Liberal Democrats' public spending commitments, I have to remind him exactly what it was his right hon. and learned Friend said. He said:
	I am clear there is now no great public mood to increase the overall burden of taxation.
	He added that current public spending was
	without precedent and must now level off.
	Yet the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington stood there telling us about scheme after scheme that he wants to move forward.
	The hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) talked about Metrolink, telling us how we should move forward on that. I have to tell him that two of his neighbour Liberal Democrats have sat in my office in the past few weeks telling me we should go ahead with a 1 billion road scheme in their constituencies. Where does all the money come from? Where would the Liberal Democrats propose to find the money?

Paul Rowen: Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Ladyman: No.
	The Government can be very proud of our achievements. We are not saying everything is perfect, but we are delivering. There have been more than 1 billion passenger journeys by rail, more even, as the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell admitted, than there were before the days of Beeching. Some 3,800 new carriages have entered service since 1999. There is not a slam-door train left on the network. The average age of stock has been reduced from 20 years to 13. Some 7.6 billion has been spent on west coast route modernisation, which has knocked half an hour off the journey between London and Manchester. East coast upgrade improvements are under way or already delivered at King's Cross, Peterborough, Leeds and Grantham. The list goes on and on and

Patrick McLoughlin: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:
	The House divided: Ayes 226, Noes 318.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House acknowledges the importance of providing a clear strategy of sustained long-term investment and forward planning to address decades of under-investment in the transport system; welcomes the further investment and new strategic framework provided by the subsequent Future of Transport White Paper; recognises the achievements since the 10 Year Plan was published, including the highest number of people using the railways since the 1960s and the delivery of major strategic road schemes, with further schemes either under way or due to start before April 2008; acknowledges that one of the main reasons for the continuing pressure on transport networks is that the United Kingdom is enjoying the longest period of sustained economic growth for more than 200 years; and supports the Government's determination to take the decisions which will be required to meet these pressures and put UK transport on a sustainable footing, including tackling the environmental impacts of transport, trialling road-pricing and building on the improvements in rail performance, as well as planning for long-term transport needs.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Pensions

That the draft Pensions Act 2004 (PPF Payments and FAS Payments) (Consequential Provisions) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 9th January, be approved.[Mr. Watson.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	That the draft Pension Protection Fund (Pension Compensation Cap) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 11th January, be approved.[Mr. Watson.]
	Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Transmissible Spongiform Encepalopathies

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 11408/05,Communication from the Commission: 'TSE Roadmap'; and agrees with the Government's policy of maintaining a set of effective and proportionate TSE controls to protect human and animal health and of securing the long overdue lifting of the EU ban on UK beef exports.[Mr. Watson.]
	Question agreed to.

COMPANIES ACT 1985 (REGULATIONS)

Ordered,
	That the Companies Act 1985 (Operating and Financial Review) (Repeal) Regulations 2005 (S.I., 2005, No. 3442), dated 14th December 2005, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.[Mr. Watson.]

PETITION
	  
	Council Tax

Matthew Taylor: This year, under Government plans, council tax payers once again face increases that are more than twice the rate of inflation. With average bills already well over 1,000, many people on low incomes, such as pensioners, face having to pay as much as 10 per cent. of their annual income in council tax. In contrast, high earners, such as the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, might pay less than 1 per cent. of their income in council tax. Such unfairness cannot go on.
	The petition that I present rightly declares:
	That the year-on-year, inflation-busting increases in Council Tax are causing hardship to many and take no account of ability to pay; further that the proposed property revaluation and re-banding exercise will make an already flawed system even worse.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons votes to replace Council Tax with a fair and equitable tax that, without recourse to any supplementary benefit, takes into account ability to pay from disposable income. Such tax to be based on a system that is free from any geographical or politically motivated discrimination, and that clearly identifies the fiscal and managerial responsibilities of all involved parties.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	As a Liberal Democrat, I have long been campaigning for such a change. It is time for the Government to listen to my constituents and those of a like mind throughout the country.
	To lie upon the Table.

A46 IMPROVEMENT SCHEME

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Watson.]

Kenneth Clarke: About half an hour ago, I listened to the Minister of State, Department for Transport, who will reply to the debate, wind up the previous debate and try to argue the merits and demerits of the handling of highways construction in this country. Many years ago, I was in the office that he now holds because I was Minister responsible for roads forabout two or three years. I replied to many Adjournment debates. I felt a certain sympathy when I heard him describing projects proposed, projects postponed and projects cancelled, which has been the history of far too much of our infrastructure investment in this country. Governments have promised a glut of road building and investment one moment, but the next minute, in the middle of a financial crisis, have cancelled many such schemes. However, the Minister is accountable for the present situation. He is responsible for trying to deliver some consistency of purpose and putting important projects in place. While I sympathise with his complaints about some of the inconsistencies of previous planning, I hope that that will make him feel guilty and thus able to respond to my complaints about the way in which improvements to the A46 are being handled.
	The A46 is built along the route of the old Fosse way. The Romans, who had an altogether better approach to infrastructure building, put the road on the map in the first place. The relevant part of the road, as far as I and other hon. Members in the Chamber are concerned, runs through my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) between Newark and Widmerpool. The road forms part of the route between Lincoln and Leicester, via Newark. It runs close to the city of Nottingham, and important feeder roads bring in traffic from Nottingham to the junctions at Bingham and Widmerpool. The road links cities and the A1 and the M1, so it is an important artery for the whole region. The part of the road about which I am talking lies between two stretches of dual carriageway. There is a fast dual carriageway between Newark and Lincoln, and there is a fast dual carriageway from Widmerpool south to Leicester. There is quite a long bottleneck between Widmerpool and Newark, for which improvement has always been planned but never delivered.
	The road carries quite a large amount of heavy goods traffic and is frequently congested. It is that most dangerous of roadsa three-lane, quite fast highway on which people expect to overtake down the centre when the opportunity arises, which has plenty of rolling small hills with dead ground and other dangerous patches. It does have a very bad accident record. There are also a large number of important rural junctions to various villages. Although there are always arguments about the precise route, there has never been any great controversy in my county of Nottinghamshire about the need to improve such an important route.
	If I may, I shall deal only with the modern times of the road. I suspect that dualling was first canvassed before the second world war. In May 1989, the road was put into what we then called the trunk road programme. Quite a lot of work was done preparing for building and quite a lot of consultation with my constituents and others took place. The scheme was at quite an advanced stage when, in 1997, the incoming Labour Government took it out of the trunk road programme. I will not return to the debates at that time, because bad examples can be found under previous Governments, including the one of whom I was a member, but the present Government have behaved inconsistently.
	When the Labour Government first came to office, they were against building roads. I went to see the then Minister, Lady Hayman, and told her that the road she was taking out of the trunk road programme would be reinstated, probably by her Government, within a few years once they had faced choruses of public complaint. Alas, she decided to take the road out of the trunk road programme; inevitably, it has been restored, because the need for it is fairly desperate. It has since been proceeding as a Highways Agency TPItargeted programme of improvementsproject under the Government's present arrangements.
	I have been impressed by the progress made in recent years. Consultation on the preferred route has been going on since about July 2005indeed, consultation is still going on. There are still some arguments about particular junctions. There is one that I think the Highways Agency has got wrong, but we are all working on the basis that there is no objection in principle to a dual carriageway. We need a dual carriageway with split-level junctions and we have been getting down to the nitty-gritty of how to achieve the maximum benefit for villagers and traffic flow. We have now reached the stage where the draft orders are shortly to be published. The Highways Agency thought, as I did, that the orders might even be made before the end of 2005 and that we might be about to go to the last major public inquiry. I and my constituents have been expecting the construction of the road to begin in 2007 or 2008, and that has been the intention.
	The reason I asked for this debateI am sure that it is the reason my hon. Friend the Member for Newark will be trying to catch the Speaker's eye and why the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) has come alongis that we are all slightly appalled to discover that, following so much preparation, the project is in imminent danger of being postponed for several years. The danger comes from the fact that the Government have decided that they regard the road as a regional and not a national priority. They have therefore indicated that the progress of construction will depend in part on their reaction to the advice of the regional assembly, which was asked to give advice by the end of January 2006 on where the project should fit into the regional priorities, so that the Government could make final decisions on how to proceed with roads in the east midlands.
	The regional assembly has been given an impossible task. The estimated cost of the project between Newark and Widmerpool is 220 million, but an out-turn figure of 250 million or 260 million would not be surprising. East Midlands regional assembly has been given an indicative budget of 80 million a year for highway improvements in the east midlands. That is the second lowest budget in the country, and it is broadly in line with what has been spent historically in our region. As a result, advice is being sought from the regional assembly and others in the region on how to fit in an important project, the cost of which will consume at least three years of the entire budget for every transport schemecertainly every road schemein the east midlands. We cannot possibly expect people outside Nottinghamshire and the surrounding areas of Leicestershire and Lincolnshire to make that decision, as the early inclusion of the scheme in the programme would postpone every improvement, every bypass and every other demand in the entire region for three years.
	The regional assembly has given its advice, but I have not seen it. I am relieved, however, to discover that it is not just a question of doing down Nottinghamshire. All the authorities in the region think that it is outrageous that they should be asked to put a whale in the pond by including the scheme in the regional programme. Local authorities are making representations to the Government saying that the project should be made a national one again. They have tried to allocate a date, but it is not an immediate one. If their advice is accepted by the Government they propose that construction should be postponed to 2012, 2013 or 2014. As with all road schemes, I will believe that when I see it. If the project, which is in an advanced state of preparation, slips from an early anticipated date to 2012 it will it be a very long time indeed before it is back on track. I therefore urge the Minister to make it a national project again.

Paddy Tipping: The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the regional assembly. May I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that the assembly has made it clear that the road is one of national significance with wider strategic importance? Councils of all political colours believe that it should be funded nationally because, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, if it is not, the budget allocated in the east midlands will be eaten up for three or four years. It is an unfortunate situation, and we need to make progress.

Kenneth Clarke: I agree that this issue cuts across political parties. Labour-controlled Nottinghamshire county council agrees firmly with Conservative-controlled Rushcliffe borough council. Most local authorities in Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Lincolnshire, regardless of party affiliation, think the present situation is wrong.
	The road meets some of the national criteria that the Minister has sent to me, unless one takes a pedantic view. The cities of Nottingham and Leicester are linked to a large part of the outside world to the north and south by the route and more than 50 per cent. of the traffic consists of HGVs. It does not have the traffic flows that the Government specify for a national project, but its flows are grotesquely excessive, and it has a high proportion of HGV traffic. It therefore ought to be a national scheme. When he applies the criteria, the Minister should take a final sanity check not only to assess whether the project complies with the strict terms of the criteria for a national scheme but whether it makes sense overall to make it a regional project rather than a national one. A scheme that will cost at least 220 million cannot be handled as a regional priority by a region that has only 80 million a year to spend on everything. It is just too big to be regarded as anything other than a national project.
	I hope to concede some time to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark, so I shall conclude. Apart from the transport needs that I have urged on the Minister, and apart from the innate policy absurdity of making significant progress with a road project only to cancel or postpone it indefinitely, there is the question of the money that has been wasted. The Minister answered a parliamentary question that I tabled on 26 January, and revealed that since the project was last included in the programme more than 10 million has been spent on design, preparation and consultation. Money is still being spent. If we are not careful, the consultants will be designing castles in the air, but earning good money while they do so.
	If the project is postponed to 201213, the Minister must admit that we will have to start the whole process all over again. Someone will demand that we have a fresh consultation on a preferred route and fresh designs made, and the money already spent will be totally aborted. The Minister is struggling to fit his roads programme into a finite budget. He is no doubt trying to get value for money. Expenditure of 10 million will be aborted and wasted on useless plans, consultancy and local negotiation if the road is put off, so I urge him to try to rescue it, and to follow up the good work that he has been doing in recent years by moving on from all the consultation and getting the road constructed.

Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) for securing the debate, to the Minister for allowing me to speak and to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) for being present to lend the necessary cross-party support to a crucial scheme.
	I hold the Minister in extremely high regard. The last time he visited my constituencyI should point out that he is the first and the only Labour Minister to visit the constituency since 1997he came at my behest because of a problem at the hospital in Newark. His help was much appreciated. I still quote him for the sense and balance that he showed on that matter.
	If I may, I invite the Minister now to join me in driving along the A46. The last time he came to my constituency, he modestly said he did not know that part of the world. If he would like to join me on the stretch of road that my right hon. and learned Friend so clearly described, we will be able to count the floral tributes by the side of the road, the near accidents that we will probably see as we drive along the 17 miles from Widmerpool to Newark, and we will be able to observe how difficult it is to turn out from one of the villages in my right hon. and learned Friend's constituency and latterly in part of my constituency as the road approaches Newark. It is a hideously dangerous road.
	There have been 57 casualties in the past five months on that stretch of road. As my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, that is particularly galling in view of the fact that last Saturday morning I was in Newark town hall looking at beautiful computer-generated videos, excellent aerial photographs, very clever designs, maps, pictures and so onI see that the hon. Member for Sherwood has been through the same processwhich show, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, a castle in the air. It is hard for me to go among my constituents, to move with them and to say, Great plans. They look super, don't they? But it ain't going to happen.
	Driving along that road in 1965 as a boy with my father, I remember him saying, This road has got to be sorted out. It's dangerous. Those were not quite the words that he used, but the Minister can probably imagine what he said. As a theological student before the war, my father had found that road dangerous. At the time, we knew there was a scheme in place to get the road sorted out.
	In the previous debate I heard the Minister, quite understandably, coming out with a long litany of failed road schemes under Conservative regimes and now, clearly, under Labour. I do not make that point to the hon. Gentleman. I am not interested in what has gone before. Mistakes have been made. However, I am deeply interested in the safety and welfare of my constituents in Newark.
	There are those who say that if we dual the road, we will make it more dangerous because speeds will go up. I ask the Minister to look at the casualty levels at Brough on the Lincoln side of Newark, where the road has already been dualled. The fatalities, I am delighted to say, have fallen to nil, and the number of injuries has gone down considerably. Nothing like that has happened on the A46, except for the space that now has safety cameras installed on it up towards Farndon. Although I am delighted to have such schemes put in place, nothing, I fear, will substitute for a proper dual carriageway.
	I would be awfully grateful if the Minister applied the same balance and reason to that stretch of road as he did to Newark hospital. I would be grateful if he were to remain untrammelled by the bureaucracy that accompanies any Government.
	Will the Minister accept my invitation to look at the road? In due course, will he accept the petition that we have started in Newark? Will he apply his common sense and intelligence and understand that this scheme must not be dealt with at the regional level? The scheme is of national importance, and it is of extreme economic importance to Newark. Will he use his good offices to make sure that he makes the sensible decision? I know that I can rely on him.

Stephen Ladyman: I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) on securing the debate. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) and the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) on their contributions.
	I have considerable sympathy with the points that have been put today. Having studied the issues in preparation for the debate, I understand the points that have been made. I will not make a commitment today, other than to take those points away and consider if and how we can proceed. There is no dispute as to whether the scheme needs to go ahead; the questions concern when it will go ahead and how we can pay for it.
	Since reference has been made to the previous debate, I should point out that this scheme was not one of those pulled by the previous Conservative Government. It remained in the programme until 1997, although it involved building three roundabouts and imposing a 50 mph speed limit. That scheme was considerably cheaper than the current proposals, but it would not have dealt with the problems. Fixing those problems will make the scheme considerably more expensive; as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe has said, it will probably cost about 220 million.
	The A46 is part of the core trunk road network, providing a strategic link between the M1 and the A1 in the east midlands. It forms part of the Bath to Lincoln trunk road, and it is a key road corridor for long and medium-distance traffic travelling from Leicester. It is the missing link between Lincoln and Leicester, as it is the only section of that important strategic route that has not been improved to modern standards.
	The section between Widmerpool and Newark carries between 16,200 and 25,300 vehicles a day, up to 15 per cent. of which are heavy goods vehicles. The mix and level of traffic, which includes significant agricultural movements, gives rise to frequent congestion and delay.
	As the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe has said, the road is straight and undulatingit follows the old Roman roadwhich makes overtaking difficult. As the hon. Member for Newark has said, the road has a poor safety record; in the five years between 2000 and 2004, there were 14 fatal, 62 serious and 222 slight accidents.
	Bridleways and footpaths join and cross this section of the A46, but walkers, cyclists and horse riders find the road difficult to cross because of the traffic. The Highways Agency has therefore proposed a new 28 km two-lane dual carriageway from the A606 two-level junction at Widmerpool to an improved roundabout at Farndon, just south of Newark. The improvement would reduce congestion, improve safety and provide a bypass for East Stoke and Farndon, helping to improve the overall quality of life for all the villagers. New two-level junctions would be provided at Roehoe, Owthorpe, Stragglethorpe, Saxondale, Margidunum, Red Lodge, Flintham and Lodge Lane.
	Some sections of the existing A46 would be retained for use by local traffic, and some sections would be downgraded for use by cyclists, walkers and horse riders and for private means of access. The proposals would provide safe access across the A46 for those users through bridges and underpasses.
	The proposed upgrade will improve safety and traffic flows and benefit the region's economy. It will complement the recently dualled stretch from Newark to Lincoln, which was opened in the summer of 2003. The journey time between Widmerpool and Newark will improve by 23 minutes in the morning peak, 27 minutes in the afternoon peak and 12 minutes in the inter-peak period. Over a 60-year evaluation period, 1,453 personal injury accidents will be saved, as will 52 fatal casualties, 327 serious injuries and 1,998 slight casualties. I hope that by putting that on the record hon. Members on both sides of the House will accept that I do not dispute the importance of getting on with the scheme.
	The Highways Agency appointed an ECIearly contractor involvementcontractor, Balfour Beatty, in March 2004 to take the scheme through the statutory process and construction. Draft orders and an environmental statement for the scheme were published on 9 December. The Highways Agency held exhibitions in two venues in mid-January and the objection or comment period ends on 17 March. The visitors' books at the two exhibitions recorded some 844 signatures, and to date about 69 written responses have been received.
	Now we come to the difficult bit. As part of the spending review in 2004, we announced that routes on the strategic road network will now fall into two categories: those of national importance, mainly the major motorways such as the M1 and M25; and those of predominantly regional importance. Under the criteria that we have adopted, the A46 has been classified as a route of regional importance. The criteria are these: to have average daily traffic flows along the length of the route of more than 60,000 vehicles; to link at least two of the top 20 English cities by population; to carry heavy goods vehicle traffic equal to or in excess of 15 per cent. as a percentage of all traffic; and to be represented on the European Union's trans-European transport network. There are other criteria involving Wales and Scotland and airports and seaports, which I am not sure would apply in this case. The A46 does not meet the strict interpretation of those criteria, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said.

Paddy Tipping: I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) has been able to join us, because he, like me, travels from Nottingham to Leicesterthe two major cities in the east midlandson this particular road, and knows that it does meet the criteria.

Stephen Ladyman: I acknowledge the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker); I had not realised that he had joined us in the Chamber. I take my hon. Friend's point, but I have to repeat that the road does not meet the strict interpretation of the criteria. However, I heard what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about the need to look at the criteria a little more flexibly. I am certainly prepared to go away and investigate what we might be able to do in that respect.
	The Secretary of State invited the regions to provide us with priorities for various schemes as part of our wider policy of taking advice from local people who know where the priorities should be. The Department received the advice from the East Midlands region yesterday. It presented many challenges, and the region has not made the scheme one of its early time scale projects. Instead, it suggested a later time scale than that that the Highways Agency originally proposed. However, the region said that it wanted to explore alternative funding sources with the Department and the Highways Agency.
	Given that I have only just received the advice and the serious difficulties that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe outlined today, I do not believe that I should comment further at this stage. I simply repeat that I have some sympathy with the points that have been made. I am prepared to consider how we can help with the scheme. However, I can make no promises because I am, to some extent, trying to squeeze a quart into a pint pot.

Patrick Mercer: Will the Minister please consider my invitation to come and see the road for himself?

Stephen Ladyman: I shall certainly consider that. Obviously, I am invited to see many roads at the moment. If I am in the area, I shall make arrangements to see the road. I am grateful for the invitation and, if I come, I shall ensure that hon. Members know that I am in the area.

Kenneth Clarke: If the scheme is put back because the region does not feel able to rule everything out for the next three or four years by recommending it, will the Minister confirm that we will have to start all over again, when it is revived, with the third process of consultation in less than 20 years, the third process of design and so on? If so, the amount of money that would be simply aborted constitutes a scandalous loss of transport investment opportunities.

Stephen Ladyman: It would depend on the length of the delay and several other factors. However, starting the process again is a possibility. At the very least, we must take account of construction inflation in the intervening period, which will always put up the price. That is why we estimate that it is likely to cost 220 million on the Highways Agency's current time scale.
	I have listened to what the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe, the hon. Member for Newark and my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood said. I have no doubt that I shall receive many more representations about the road. I have undertaken to examine the issues as sympathetically as I can. However, I ask for a little sympathy in turn because I have to exercise the judgment of Solomon about the difficulties. Every region in the country has identified a whale in the pond, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman described it, that they would like me to make a priority and fund separately from their regional prioritisation. Clearly, I cannot do that everywhere because there is simply not enough money to go round. I stress that I have heard the messages of the debate and I shall do what I can to be helpful.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Eight o'clock.